obama signs the tax bill, just a couple of questions

Hmmmm...democrats (not) standing up on principle?

My, my, this is getting interesting.

Well, I don't think this was a good compromise, and apparently some Dems (and apparenhtly about the same number of Republicans) in the House agree.

I understand (I guess) what motivated Obama to buy into it, I just happen to think he gave away too much to the supply side in the process.

This so called compromise does put the lie to the GOP's continuing lie that they are fiscal conservatives, though, doesn't it?

They just added $720 billion to the national debt so their pals the billionaires would continue to get that tax break.

And the Dems gave that away so that they could save 6 million American families from losing their unemployment insurance for 26 more weeks.

And that we're informed will add still another $80 billion to the national debt.

But that's hardly a fair compromise, now is it?

The working class *demand side) gets 1 part of the pie and the billionaire class (supply side) gets 9 slices?

That means that Obama is not my choice to lead this ongoing class war OR to lead us out of this depression, either.

And I guess, he's not exactly popular with the Dems, either.

We're informed that the total cost for this "compromise" means another $858 billion to the national debt.
I seriously doubt that there's enough demand side incentives to much help get the American middle class out of the depression that THEY and ONLY they are in.

But I note that there's plenty of benfits to the truly wealthy who are not remotely suffering (in fact they're thriving) in this economy.


Not taking money from people can hardly increase the debt unless that money has already been spent. In that case, it means that the folks spending the money are spending too much. It also seems to imply that those in charge seem to think that the money belongs to them inthe first place.

What I plan to spend over any period is based on what I can reasonably expect I will collect. Budgeting to have a shortfall is beyond stupid except when you know that shortfall will be made up in the short term future.

REDUCE SPENDING!

They will not reduce spending because there's no political price for not reducing spending. The Republican Congress did not reduce spending for 6 years of Bush administration, and what happened? The voters gave them 2 years off and now have put them right back into power. The Democrats, on the other hand, are now throwing in the towel and capitulating to the GOP national suicide policy of just cutting taxes, continuing to spend, and running up the debt for as long as they can get away with it.

NOBODY (at least not enough anybodies) is willing to face the fact that fixing the situation requires SACRIFICE. This tax bill is not a fix because there's no sacrifice in it, no pain;

since the fix requires sacrifice, a bill without any in it cannot possibly make things better.

We are going to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars from the likes of the Chinese and the Saudis,
so Americans will have more spending money,

to buy more Chinese goods and Saudi oil.

Who honestly thinks that's the right plan??

You're going to bitch and complain about 6 years of Republican fuck ups compared to 55 years of democratic fuck ups? what a joke.
 
Not taking money from people can hardly increase the debt unless that money has already been spent. In that case, it means that the folks spending the money are spending too much. It also seems to imply that those in charge seem to think that the money belongs to them inthe first place.

What I plan to spend over any period is based on what I can reasonably expect I will collect. Budgeting to have a shortfall is beyond stupid except when you know that shortfall will be made up in the short term future.

REDUCE SPENDING!

They will not reduce spending because there's no political price for not reducing spending. The Republican Congress did not reduce spending for 6 years of Bush administration, and what happened? The voters gave them 2 years off and now have put them right back into power. The Democrats, on the other hand, are now throwing in the towel and capitulating to the GOP national suicide policy of just cutting taxes, continuing to spend, and running up the debt for as long as they can get away with it.

NOBODY (at least not enough anybodies) is willing to face the fact that fixing the situation requires SACRIFICE. This tax bill is not a fix because there's no sacrifice in it, no pain;

since the fix requires sacrifice, a bill without any in it cannot possibly make things better.

We are going to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars from the likes of the Chinese and the Saudis,
so Americans will have more spending money,

to buy more Chinese goods and Saudi oil.

Who honestly thinks that's the right plan??

You're going to bitch and complain about 6 years of Republican fuck ups compared to 55 years of democratic fuck ups? what a joke.

Don't respond to my posts if you don't have anything intelligent to say.
 
Yeh it was bipartisanship as long as the GOP went along with what the DEMS wanted....when the DEMS saw Obama adapting a Republican plan then it was considered a cave in....

It's a profoundly stupid bill no matter what else you want to call it.

There is only one reason this bill had bi-partisan support - it's a big giveaway. It's throwing 900 billion dollars at the problem. It's a Free Lunch.
 
Yeh it was bipartisanship as long as the GOP went along with what the DEMS wanted....when the DEMS saw Obama adapting a Republican plan then it was considered a cave in....

It's a profoundly stupid bill no matter what else you want to call it.

There is only one reason this bill had bi-partisan support - it's a big giveaway. It's throwing 900 billion dollars at the problem. It's a Free Lunch.



What was Papa Obama's Pork Bill? You remember, the one that was suppose to keep unemployment under 8 percent....


:eusa_whistle:
 
There are def. millionnaires and billionnaires in the D party.
 
Yeh it was bipartisanship as long as the GOP went along with what the DEMS wanted....when the DEMS saw Obama adapting a Republican plan then it was considered a cave in....

It's a profoundly stupid bill no matter what else you want to call it.

There is only one reason this bill had bi-partisan support - it's a big giveaway. It's throwing 900 billion dollars at the problem. It's a Free Lunch.

I agree. Personally, I was in favor of NO tax bill. Higher taxes, no more unemployment extension. Time for people to get off their asses and find work. Time for Americans to start paying off this debt. Time for this country to start acting FISCALLY responsible.

Unfortunately, this administration and the Congress are full of fucking retards with absolutely zero economic sense. Sigh.
 
Yeh it was bipartisanship as long as the GOP went along with what the DEMS wanted....when the DEMS saw Obama adapting a Republican plan then it was considered a cave in....

It's a profoundly stupid bill no matter what else you want to call it.

There is only one reason this bill had bi-partisan support - it's a big giveaway. It's throwing 900 billion dollars at the problem. It's a Free Lunch.



What was Papa Obama's Pork Bill? You remember, the one that was suppose to keep unemployment under 8 percent....


:eusa_whistle:

It was 40% tax cuts, a good deal of them being extended in this bill. No, we couldn't afford the last stimulus bill.

Why do you think we can afford this one?
 
It's a profoundly stupid bill no matter what else you want to call it.

There is only one reason this bill had bi-partisan support - it's a big giveaway. It's throwing 900 billion dollars at the problem. It's a Free Lunch.



What was Papa Obama's Pork Bill? You remember, the one that was suppose to keep unemployment under 8 percent....


:eusa_whistle:

It was 40% tax cuts, a good deal of them being extended in this bill. No, we couldn't afford the last stimulus bill.

Why do you think we can afford this one?




Don't worry the new congress will help with that....
:eusa_angel:
 
What was Papa Obama's Pork Bill? You remember, the one that was suppose to keep unemployment under 8 percent....


:eusa_whistle:

It was 40% tax cuts, a good deal of them being extended in this bill. No, we couldn't afford the last stimulus bill.

Why do you think we can afford this one?




Don't worry the new congress will help with that....
:eusa_angel:

No they won't. They won't balance the budget. They just made that almost a trillion dollars more difficult.
 
They will not reduce spending because there's no political price for not reducing spending. The Republican Congress did not reduce spending for 6 years of Bush administration, and what happened? The voters gave them 2 years off and now have put them right back into power. The Democrats, on the other hand, are now throwing in the towel and capitulating to the GOP national suicide policy of just cutting taxes, continuing to spend, and running up the debt for as long as they can get away with it.

NOBODY (at least not enough anybodies) is willing to face the fact that fixing the situation requires SACRIFICE. This tax bill is not a fix because there's no sacrifice in it, no pain;

since the fix requires sacrifice, a bill without any in it cannot possibly make things better.

We are going to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars from the likes of the Chinese and the Saudis,
so Americans will have more spending money,

to buy more Chinese goods and Saudi oil.

Who honestly thinks that's the right plan??

You're going to bitch and complain about 6 years of Republican fuck ups compared to 55 years of democratic fuck ups? what a joke.

What he said is dead on and this tax compromise is a fiscal disaster.
 
It was 40% tax cuts, a good deal of them being extended in this bill. No, we couldn't afford the last stimulus bill.

Why do you think we can afford this one?




Don't worry the new congress will help with that....
:eusa_angel:

No they won't. They won't balance the budget. They just made that almost a trillion dollars more difficult.


Republicans stop Lame Duck Congress from passing Omnibus Spending BIll

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) says he is “sorry and disappointed” to announce that he does not have the votes for the omnibus spending package. Instead, he will work with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) to draft a temporary continuing resolution to fund the government into early next year.
Well at least they got a good start by stopping more of the radical polices of the lame duck congress
:eusa_angel:
 
Yeh it was bipartisanship as long as the GOP went along with what the DEMS wanted....when the DEMS saw Obama adapting a Republican plan then it was considered a cave in....

It's a profoundly stupid bill no matter what else you want to call it.

There is only one reason this bill had bi-partisan support - it's a big giveaway. It's throwing 900 billion dollars at the problem. It's a Free Lunch.

I agree. Personally, I was in favor of NO tax bill. Higher taxes, no more unemployment extension. Time for people to get off their asses and find work. Time for Americans to start paying off this debt. Time for this country to start acting FISCALLY responsible.

Unfortunately, this administration and the Congress are full of fucking retards with absolutely zero economic sense. Sigh.

I completely agree. We all enjoyed the booze cruise to where we're at, we can all pay a little more to start getting out of it.

As to the bolded portion, I think you underestimate how hard work is to find for many, particularly low-skilled and/or not so bright people. These people used to work in factories and the like, and fare relatively well with a relatively comfortable life; So I do feel the government needs to guide these jobs back home. Realistically, due to political barriers, neither party has the moxie to engage this problem or even bring it up, but our situation will not improve for the long term as long as we're borrowers and consumers, and not producers. IMO.
 
They never wanted Bipartisanship. That was all just more Bullshit for the dunces in the Media to eat up. Pelosi & Reid have been the most hateful partisan leaders to ever rule in our U.S. Congress. Pelosi achieved all-time new lows in hateful partisan hackery when she declared the opposition "Un-American Nazis." She also helped achieve an all-time new low 13% Congressional Approval Rating. This Bill is just another Shit-Sandwich being shoved down the American peoples' throats by the Worst U.S. Congress in History. The Socialists/Progressives have been such hysterical wankers over it,but it was not a big win for Conservatives or Republicans. It was a compromise,which is what the American People supposedly want. No one really won with this Bill but that's what Bipartisanship is all about most of the time.
 
In every Major Presidental signing the democratic leadership was standing behind him, Where are they now? What happen to the democrats that wanted bipartisanship?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emYrBgHBRdo


Obama signs massive tax bill
He hails a new spirit of cooperation. Notably absent are Democratic leaders.


Read more: Obama signs massive tax bill - CharlotteObserver.com

It isn't their brand of bipartisanship. I hate that term by the way. You either do the right thing for the country at large or get outta the political scene.

And as a matter of course? Obama had to appear to do something for the political pickle he's in from the damage he's caused. This act by him can be seen as the vaunted "triangulation" to the center a-la Clinton in 1994.

Don't be fooled by it. His actions to date have already shown us a roadmap to his real intent. This is just a minor setback for him even though he had to even piss off his most ardent supporters on the extreme Statist left.

He'll be back in great form with his VETO PEN warming up in the bullpen.

Just sit back and watch.
 
They will not reduce spending because there's no political price for not reducing spending. The Republican Congress did not reduce spending for 6 years of Bush administration, and what happened? The voters gave them 2 years off and now have put them right back into power. The Democrats, on the other hand, are now throwing in the towel and capitulating to the GOP national suicide policy of just cutting taxes, continuing to spend, and running up the debt for as long as they can get away with it.

NOBODY (at least not enough anybodies) is willing to face the fact that fixing the situation requires SACRIFICE. This tax bill is not a fix because there's no sacrifice in it, no pain;

since the fix requires sacrifice, a bill without any in it cannot possibly make things better.

We are going to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars from the likes of the Chinese and the Saudis,
so Americans will have more spending money,

to buy more Chinese goods and Saudi oil.

Who honestly thinks that's the right plan??

You're going to bitch and complain about 6 years of Republican fuck ups compared to 55 years of democratic fuck ups? what a joke.

Don't respond to my posts if you don't have anything intelligent to say.

Bitching about 6 years Republican compared to 55 years Democrat. Maybe I should ask you not to respond to any of my threads if you can't stop bitching about 6 years and start bitching about 55 years of democratic control.
 
Hmmmm...democrats (not) standing up on principle?

My, my, this is getting interesting.

Well, I don't think this was a good compromise, and apparently some Dems (and apparenhtly about the same number of Republicans) in the House agree.

I understand (I guess) what motivated Obama to buy into it, I just happen to think he gave away too much to the supply side in the process.

This so called compromise does put the lie to the GOP's continuing lie that they are fiscal conservatives, though, doesn't it?

They just added $720 billion to the national debt so their pals the billionaires would continue to get that tax break.

And the Dems gave that away so that they could save 6 million American families from losing their unemployment insurance for 26 more weeks.

And that we're informed will add still another $80 billion to the national debt.

But that's hardly a fair compromise, now is it?

The working class *demand side) gets 1 part of the pie and the billionaire class (supply side) gets 9 slices?

That means that Obama is not my choice to lead this ongoing class war OR to lead us out of this depression, either.

And I guess, he's not exactly popular with the Dems, either.

We're informed that the total cost for this "compromise" means another $858 billion to the national debt.

I seriously doubt that there's enough demand side incentives to much help get the American middle class out of the depression that THEY and ONLY they are in.

But I note that there's plenty of benfits to the truly wealthy who are not remotely suffering (in fact they're thriving) in this economy.

No it's not.

President Obama should have let the Bush Tax cuts die. They are way to expensive and add nothing in terms of "stimulus" or "job creation". This "experiment" failed big time.

What Obama should be focusing on is getting us the heck out of Iraq and Afghanistan. That along with the Tax cuts expiring would have done a good deal more to rein in spending...then the current "compromise".
 
Hmmmm...democrats (not) standing up on principle?

My, my, this is getting interesting.

Well, I don't think this was a good compromise, and apparently some Dems (and apparenhtly about the same number of Republicans) in the House agree.

I understand (I guess) what motivated Obama to buy into it, I just happen to think he gave away too much to the supply side in the process.

This so called compromise does put the lie to the GOP's continuing lie that they are fiscal conservatives, though, doesn't it?

They just added $720 billion to the national debt so their pals the billionaires would continue to get that tax break.

And the Dems gave that away so that they could save 6 million American families from losing their unemployment insurance for 26 more weeks.

And that we're informed will add still another $80 billion to the national debt.

But that's hardly a fair compromise, now is it?

The working class *demand side) gets 1 part of the pie and the billionaire class (supply side) gets 9 slices?

That means that Obama is not my choice to lead this ongoing class war OR to lead us out of this depression, either.

And I guess, he's not exactly popular with the Dems, either.

We're informed that the total cost for this "compromise" means another $858 billion to the national debt.

I seriously doubt that there's enough demand side incentives to much help get the American middle class out of the depression that THEY and ONLY they are in.

But I note that there's plenty of benfits to the truly wealthy who are not remotely suffering (in fact they're thriving) in this economy.

No it's not.

President Obama should have let the Bush Tax cuts die. They are way to expensive and add nothing in terms of "stimulus" or "job creation". This "experiment" failed big time.

What Obama should be focusing on is getting us the heck out of Iraq and Afghanistan. That along with the Tax cuts expiring would have done a good deal more to rein in spending...then the current "compromise".

So In effect YOU...would have said effectively FUCK IT.

Raise Taxes in a very crucial time in our history when so many are outta work...?

Not happening Einstein. And can you tell us why the Statist Democrats waited so damned long to address this? AFTER the Mid-Terms where they lost thier asses?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top