Obama Playing Politics With Bush Tax-cut Again

[Sallow]

Obama threatened Congress not to attach the Keystone pipeline deal to the tax-cut extension yesterday.

Wait a minute.....hasn't Obama and the rest of the Democrats been telling the Republicans to drop the cuts in every private negotiation since the debt-ceiling crisis?

Of course he will veto any tax cut that's linked to the Keystone Pipeline, he doesn't want to be forced to make any kind of executive decision that would cost him votes. He needs all the supporters he can, at this point, and splitting the vote of those that would support him is not an option (it's 100% political).

I heard the speech he delivered with the Canadian Prime Minister, and his excuse is that it's simply going to take time (well over a year mind you) to be sure all the safety measures are in place that no possibility of an envirnomental threat would exist before making a decision. Excuse me? Is this Keystone pipeline some kind of NEW technology that it requires over a YEAR to finally formulate a decision? Perhaps he should have taken the same amount of time before pushing his GREEN initive with companies like Solyndra, or trying to find a way to force the sale of the Chevy Volt onto a market that's not ready to go out and empty the lots over that kind of price tag technology. Why else is the Federal Government willing to take on a hit of further Government Debt just to subsidize a product consumers aren't confident is even safe?

Part of the problem with these treehugger types is any time we do anything they insist on finding out what the environmental impact will be.

Expensive and time consuming.

Yeah because people dying and the environment getting fucked is of no concern to you folks. As well as making sure that it is Americans working on the project and making sure that private property is respected.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Of course a libs solution. cut OUR DEFENSE.

Defense is a misnomer. Because the type of military we have now was never advocated by the founders or the Constitution.

Neither does the Founders advocate Social Security, government funded Health Care, or Welfare. Which is why the preamble to the Constitution reads:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

You did notice how our Founders were very specific when they chose to use the word "PROMOTE", not provide for, the general Welfare. I can go on and make the same case as you, with respect to what our Founders actually wrote in the United States Constitution.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

End the Bush tax cuts, period. Add another tax bracket for those above one million. Cut our military budget to the point that we are spending only as much as the next 7 countries combined, instead of as much as the next 14 countries combined.

Make the amount paid by the individual for SS apply to all income, no upper limit. Solves the SS problem for good. Go for full universal health care, paid for by an addition on all Income Taxes. That takes care of Medicare and Mediaid.

Cut the military? Good god man. Are you a moron? We have our men and women involved in ten fucking conflicts globally and you want to CUT the military?

If anything, we should reinstate the draft and teach idiots like you how to fight/operate a rifle.

No way. They might shoot one of us in the ass.

. . . . or be a complete klutz like Jack Trippler, which would make it completely feasible how someone like John Kerry can earn 3 purple hearts in a matter of only 4 months time.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

No way. They might shoot one of us in the ass.

Yeah I know. Hell, the Commander-In-Chump probably wouldn't know which end of the tube the round comes out of if handed a rifle.

Now, give him a golf club - he'll show us how to use that- LOL!

The only reason he took up golfing is because he feels it will make him one of the fellas.

He looks like a grown man that never learned to golf as a kid.

Just like Martha's Vinyard. Nothing like creating the appearance of forming a common bond amonst the rich, right before you insult your host.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Part of the problem with these treehugger types is any time we do anything they insist on finding out what the environmental impact will be.

Expensive and time consuming.

Just like that decision to go with wind power they supported. Well, that was until the birds began migrating through the blades, now they want this administration to provide an alternate form of power.

 

[Full-Auto]

Of course he will veto any tax cut that's linked to the Keystone Pipeline, he doesn't want to be forced to make any kind of executive decision that would cost him votes. He needs all the supporters he can, at this point, and splitting the vote of those that would support him is not an option (it's 100% political).

I heard the speech he delivered with the Canadian Prime Minister, and his excuse is that it's simply going to take time (well over a year mind you) to be sure all the safety measures are in place that no possibility of an envirnomental threat would exist before making a decision. Excuse me? Is this Keystone pipeline some kind of NEW technology that it requires over a YEAR to finally formulate a decision? Perhaps he should have taken the same amount of time before pushing his GREEN initive with companies like Solyndra, or trying to find a way to force the sale of the Chevy Volt onto a market that's not ready to go out and empty the lots over that kind of price tag technology. Why else is the Federal Government willing to take on a hit of further Government Debt just to subsidize a product consumers aren't confident is even safe?

Part of the problem with these treehugger types is any time we do anything they insist on finding out what the environmental impact will be.

Expensive and time consuming.

Yeah because people dying and the environment getting fucked is of no concern to you folks. As well as making sure that it is Americans working on the project and making sure that private property is respected.

making sure that private property is respected.

 

[WillowTree]

Of course a libs solution. cut OUR DEFENSE.

there's a reason why libtards don't like our military, why their deaths at the hands of islamic extremists are labeled a workplace violence. think about that for a few seconds.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Of course he will veto any tax cut that's linked to the Keystone Pipeline, he doesn't want to be forced to make any kind of executive decision that would cost him votes. He needs all the supporters he can, at this point, and splitting the vote of those that would support him is not an option (it's 100% political).

I heard the speech he delivered with the Canadian Prime Minister, and his excuse is that it's simply going to take time (well over a year mind you) to be sure all the safety measures are in place that no possibility of an envirnomental threat would exist before making a decision. Excuse me? Is this Keystone pipeline some kind of NEW technology that it requires over a YEAR to finally formulate a decision? Perhaps he should have taken the same amount of time before pushing his GREEN initive with companies like Solyndra, or trying to find a way to force the sale of the Chevy Volt onto a market that's not ready to go out and empty the lots over that kind of price tag technology. Why else is the Federal Government willing to take on a hit of further Government Debt just to subsidize a product consumers aren't confident is even safe?

Part of the problem with these treehugger types is any time we do anything they insist on finding out what the environmental impact will be.

Expensive and time consuming.

Yeah because people dying and the environment getting fucked is of no concern to you folks. As well as making sure that it is Americans working on the project and making sure that private property is respected.

You never heard of the issues surrounding eminent domain? When has the Government not simply decided to just TAKE what they wanted? That's what Big Government does best these days.

 

[Greenbeard]

Obama threatened Congress not to attach the Keystone pipeline deal to the tax-cut extension yesterday.

Wait a minute.....hasn't Obama and the rest of the Democrats been telling the Republicans to drop the cuts in every private negotiation since the debt-ceiling crisis?

Obama threatens veto if pipeline decision is added to payroll tax cut

[...]

So let me get this right; Obama doesn't like the tax-cuts and he doesn't like the Keystone Pipeline deal ether. So why does he think he can get away with this threat?

Do you honestly not understand that the Bush income tax cuts appear nowhere in your story about the payroll tax cut extension? Do you follow current events at all?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Of course a libs solution. cut OUR DEFENSE.

there's a reason why libtards don't like our military, why their deaths at the hands of islamic extremists are labeled a workplace violence. think about that for a few seconds.

Why do you think Obama wants to back away from doing anything too harsh that might upset Iran? He will go after terrorists in areas that are already established by our military from a previous administration, but moving on to take a more serious stand against Iran or North Korea? Well I think you may be pushing it. He's not going to stand by any decision that might "stir the waters" too much or make any nation too uncomfortable.

'White House pushes to weaken Iran sanctions' - Israel News, Ynetnews
The Associated Press: Administration pushes to weaken Iran bank sanction

 

[AmericanFirst]

Obama threatened Congress not to attach the Keystone pipeline deal to the tax-cut extension yesterday.

Wait a minute.....hasn't Obama and the rest of the Democrats been telling the Republicans to drop the cuts in every private negotiation since the debt-ceiling crisis?

Obama threatens veto if pipeline decision is added to payroll tax cut
By Ben Geman - 12/07/11 03:52 PM ET

The battle between the White House and Republicans over the Keystone XL pipeline escalated Wednesday with a veto threat delivered personally by President Obama.

Obama warned that he would veto an extension of the payroll-tax cut, his top legislative priority, if House Republicans link it to a measure that would force the administration to greenlight the pipeline project.

“Any effort to try to tie Keystone to the payroll-tax cut, I will reject,” Obama told reporters Wednesday after meeting at the White House with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Obama threatens veto if pipeline decision is added to payroll tax cut - The Hill's E2-Wire

So let me get this right; Obama doesn't like the tax-cuts and he doesn't like the Keystone Pipeline deal ether. So why does he think he can get away with this threat? Does he actually think we haven't been paying attention, or is he simply playing to the mindless nimrods that still want to vote for him even after he's turned out to be the disaster that I and others have predicted?

BTW, Obama said he's not leaving Washington on another Hawaiian vacation till this extension is pushed through for yet again another year. Why not make it permanent like Bush asked them to do for years?

FYI, the Dems insisted that the cuts not be made permanent. Remember that? That is the only why they could get it passed in the first place, and now they're using it like a club over the GOP simply because they think we have short memories.

I suggest that Congress not vote on it till next Summer. Maybe the prick will be forced to do some work then. Personally, I think everyone needs to find out what will happen if the cuts expire like the Democrats want. The deal here is the Dems are trying to find a way of blaming it all on the Republicans.

He's looking for congress to stop tying unrelated nonsense into legislation. In other words, he wants a clean bill.

By the way..he's the president. He can do that.

Dimwits and obamaturd wouldn't know a clean bill if it hit them upside their stupid heads. It is the dimwits that for the past three years have loaded every bill with stupid add ons. All of a sudden obamaturd wants us to believe he is the good guy, bull, he is lying like he all ways does.

 

[Sallow]

Of course a libs solution. cut OUR DEFENSE.

Defense is a misnomer. Because the type of military we have now was never advocated by the founders or the Constitution.

Neither does the Founders advocate Social Security, government funded Health Care, or Welfare. Which is why the preamble to the Constitution reads:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

You did notice how our Founders were very specific when they chose to use the word "PROMOTE", not provide for, the general Welfare. I can go on and make the same case as you, with respect to what our Founders actually wrote in the United States Constitution.

It's not promoting the general welfare watching old folks live out their last years in misery or letting kids go hungry.

And if that's the type of government we are going to have..look for something in the order of the French Revolution a coming.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Defense is a misnomer. Because the type of military we have now was never advocated by the founders or the Constitution.

Neither does the Founders advocate Social Security, government funded Health Care, or Welfare. Which is why the preamble to the Constitution reads:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

You did notice how our Founders were very specific when they chose to use the word "PROMOTE", not provide for, the general Welfare. I can go on and make the same case as you, with respect to what our Founders actually wrote in the United States Constitution.

It's not promoting the general welfare watching old folks live out their last years in misery or letting kids go hungry.

And if that's the type of government we are going to have..look for something in the order of the French Revolution a coming.

If that's what our Founders really wanted, then Ben Franklin might not have taken a stand that says otherwise.

“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
― Benjamin Franklin

Take some time and think about what he just said for a moment, let it sink in some about what the Founders had intended and desired for this country. Doesn't sound like the government was meant to provide everyone with what they "desired". That's why they also believed:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Where is it written that the government is meant to be sure they PROVIDED to others to make them happy? They believed it's the individual's role to work hard and make for themselves the lifestyle they wanted, while government stands out of the way and gives individuals the freedom to pursue those liberties of SELF provision through hard work. NOT government "silver platter" politics towards those who aren't willing to go out and provide for themselves, or become jealous of those who made the decisions and worked hard taking the necessary risks to get the lifestyle they wanted.

 

[mudwhistle]

Of course he will veto any tax cut that's linked to the Keystone Pipeline, he doesn't want to be forced to make any kind of executive decision that would cost him votes. He needs all the supporters he can, at this point, and splitting the vote of those that would support him is not an option (it's 100% political).

I heard the speech he delivered with the Canadian Prime Minister, and his excuse is that it's simply going to take time (well over a year mind you) to be sure all the safety measures are in place that no possibility of an envirnomental threat would exist before making a decision. Excuse me? Is this Keystone pipeline some kind of NEW technology that it requires over a YEAR to finally formulate a decision? Perhaps he should have taken the same amount of time before pushing his GREEN initive with companies like Solyndra, or trying to find a way to force the sale of the Chevy Volt onto a market that's not ready to go out and empty the lots over that kind of price tag technology. Why else is the Federal Government willing to take on a hit of further Government Debt just to subsidize a product consumers aren't confident is even safe?

Part of the problem with these treehugger types is any time we do anything they insist on finding out what the environmental impact will be.

Expensive and time consuming.

Yeah because people dying and the environment getting fucked is of no concern to you folks. As well as making sure that it is Americans working on the project and making sure that private property is respected.

Most of the time human needs are secondary to the needs of some hairy tree-slug that only lives on that piece of land. That is usually the excuse they're using.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Defense is a misnomer. Because the type of military we have now was never advocated by the founders or the Constitution.

Neither does the Founders advocate Social Security, government funded Health Care, or Welfare. Which is why the preamble to the Constitution reads:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

You did notice how our Founders were very specific when they chose to use the word "PROMOTE", not provide for, the general Welfare. I can go on and make the same case as you, with respect to what our Founders actually wrote in the United States Constitution.

It's not promoting the general welfare watching old folks live out their last years in misery or letting kids go hungry.

Also, what ever happened to the young supporting and respecting the old in their family? You don't have any family "values" that you believe the government should take responsibility for the elderly in your family, because they are too much of a burden on your own shoulders? So placing that burden in the hands of the government is more comfortable for you? I would like to believe, that the young would still have the descency and desire to take care of the old that provided for them when THEY needed it.

It's the distruction of our family values that the left somehow believes is now the responsibility of Government to play the responsible parent. Instead of caring for their own, they always look to dump their "problems" on the doorstep of the Federal Government.

 

[Oldstyle]

He's looking for congress to stop tying unrelated nonsense into legislation. In other words, he wants a clean bill.

By the way..he's the president. He can do that.

He's also a former Senator..

So if he wants in one hand and shits in the other which gets filled first?

He's now the President. Get it?

He's telling them to send a clean bill. If they don't it will probably see a veto. That's why he's in the position.

Don't like it? Don't vote for him next time around.

When he puts his political ideology before American jobs that's EXACTLY what many people will be doing, Sallow. Obama is delaying a vote on this pipeline because he doesn't want to choose between angering labor or angering environmentalists. What he's done is the equivilant of a "present" vote when he was back in the Illinois Senate...it let's him off the hook on a tough decision.

 

[mudwhistle]

Defense is a misnomer. Because the type of military we have now was never advocated by the founders or the Constitution.

Neither does the Founders advocate Social Security, government funded Health Care, or Welfare. Which is why the preamble to the Constitution reads:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

You did notice how our Founders were very specific when they chose to use the word "PROMOTE", not provide for, the general Welfare. I can go on and make the same case as you, with respect to what our Founders actually wrote in the United States Constitution.

It's not promoting the general welfare watching old folks live out their last years in misery or letting kids go hungry.

And if that's the type of government we are going to have..look for something in the order of the French Revolution a coming.

If liberal policies saved the world as advertized why come the world keeps needing to be saved?

Btw, point out any policies meant to make old folks suffer and starve the kids Michelle says are too fat.

 

[Claudette]

He's looking for congress to stop tying unrelated nonsense into legislation. In other words, he wants a clean bill.

By the way..he's the president. He can do that.

He's also a former Senator..

So if he wants in one hand and shits in the other which gets filled first?

He's now the President. Get it?

He's telling them to send a clean bill. If they don't it will probably see a veto. That's why he's in the position.

Don't like it? Don't vote for him next time around.

The House needs to attach the Keyston pipline to the bill. The pipeline has been vetter for 3yrs and is good to go. It will provide jobs. The Canadians are not happy and I'm sure they won't be waiting till 2013 to build it. They can go West with it. I'm sure the Chinese would love all that oil.

Let em attach it and let Barry veto it. He can then explain why he's throwin these jobs out the window.

Guys playing poltics big time. His base is more important that jobs doncha know??

 

[mudwhistle]

He's also a former Senator..

So if he wants in one hand and shits in the other which gets filled first?

He's now the President. Get it?

He's telling them to send a clean bill. If they don't it will probably see a veto. That's why he's in the position.

Don't like it? Don't vote for him next time around.

When he puts his political ideology before American jobs that's EXACTLY what many people will be doing, Sallow. Obama is delaying a vote on this pipeline because he doesn't want to choose between angering labor or angering environmentalists. What he's done is the equivilant of a "present" vote when he was back in the Illinois Senate...it let's him off the hook on a tough decision.

It's all about money. He pisses anyone off they stop sending it to him, so he waits till after the election to give whomever the bad news. The Unions, the Environmentalists, the unemployed oil-workers, everyone has to wait till his sorry ass gets another 4 years.

 

[mudwhistle]

This is one Shovel-ready project that has to wait on a President only thinking about himself.