Obama, Republicans reach deal to extend tax cuts, unemployment benefits

[MaggieMae]

how ******* much money do we have to borrow to let 50% of americans pay zero federal income tax each year? How much money do we have to ******* borrow to accomplish that?

Ah shaddap, you illiterate fishwife.

 

[MaggieMae]

So, why didn't Obama have the balls to call their bluff? Can you imagine the poitical suicide the GOP would have committed by "shutting everything down" right about now?

B/c the gop didn't say that. She's making shit up and accusing the gop of her make believe.

TM doesn't reside on the same planet as the rest of us.

Trust me, if I personally lived within 100 miles of you, I would move.

 

[MaggieMae]

I don't.

155 weeks of unemployment is utterly insane. There are jobs out there. They are not your fantacy job, but it is a job.

can everyone work the jobs that are out there? No, some people are limited, and exceptions can be made.

UI should have been pushed past Christmas, just so no one takes it in the ass at this time, but not past the new year.

And no surprise, none of the liberals are demanding that thier people cut spending so we don't have to keep borrowing.

Where the hell did you come up with 155 weeks.

That isnt what was proposed. The automatic stops remain in place. The extension means others will qualify has the others have exhausted thiers.

Jesus!!

perhaps I misread. But I thought I read the unemployment will be extended another 13 months.

That's 155 weeks. Or is it that more people can go to 99 weeks?

either way, each party got what they wanted and will suffer these consequinces in 2012.

Why are you just assuming nothing will happen for two years?

 

[The T]

i like the fact that im getting some tax breaks. but i am seriously concerned about the effort the government is going to to destroy the heart and soul of so many people by keeping them on public assistance.

Very good observation. I have a theory that I belive they are trying to get people used to the idea of big government assistance...that way? It will be easier for them to push more and more of it with smaller resistance.

The government does no one but themselves any favours. Just imagine the loss of dignity having to rely upon others when you know it isn't the correct thing?

 

[CMike]

The republicans were not aggressive enough.

They were defending taxes not going up.

They need to be aggressively pushing tax rate reductions across the board.

They are playing obamas game.

 

[MaggieMae]

Deficits were in decline until Democrats controlled Congress in 2007.

The country was thrown into war in 2001.

to both.

 

[JimH52]

I want to know how future Speaker Boner is going to pay for this. Please don't tell me that they don't have a plan to pay for the tax cuts for the rich! I mean that would be hypocrisy, wouldn't it?

That is how the GOP won their seats in the House. They were going to "Pay as they go. Hey, even before they are sworn in, they go back on thier words. Gee, was that claim just another political lie?

Come on GOP voices. Give me your solution here!

 

[MaggieMae]

Deficits were in decline until Democrats controlled Congress in 2007.

The country was thrown into war in 2001.

Both are true statements.

So Bush increased the deficit by 89%, then decreased it by 2% and that was progress?

"Throwing us" into war is a misnomer at best. Only Afghanistan was legitimate at the time.

 

[DiveCon]

I want to know how future Speaker Boner is going to pay for this. Please don't tell me that they don't have a plan to pay for the tax cuts for the rich! I mean that would be hypocrisy, wouldn't it?

That is how the GOP won their seats in the House. They were going to "Pay as they go. Hey, even before they are sworn in, they go back on thier words. Gee, was that claim just another political lie?

Come on GOP voices. Give me your solution here!

assuming one has to "pay" for a tax cut is assuming that its the governments money in the first place
what you need to pay for is spending programs

 

[MaggieMae]

Both are true statements.

The Democrats in Congress, if you want to play this game, took the majority inheriting 2 unpaid for wars, an unpaid for Medicare drug bill - the largest expansion of government healthcare since the sixties - and a slowing economy that was beginning to generate less tax revenue.

And the republicans inherited a burst tech bubble and lax international intelligence and lax security against terrorist attacks at home.

We can keep going all the way back to england with this if you want.

Oh let's do. It's been a long time since I've seen anyone blame Clinton for everything. You should start a new thread. That would be a fun topic.

 

[MaggieMae]

Bush's deficits were in decline from 2005 until Congress was controlled by Democrats in 2007. Unemployment remained low, about half of what it is now.

Exactly what was the problem with those tax cuts?

Why don't you tell us how they benefited the economy. OUR economy. Where was the intended trickle down? If the tax cuts worked so well, why is it businesses fell to pieces so quickly after the banks began to fail if they (business) were doing so swimmingly because of nice tax cuts.

In fact, why don't you answer any of my questions?

 

[The T]

I want to know how future Speaker Boner is going to pay for this. Please don't tell me that they don't have a plan to pay for the tax cuts for the rich! I mean that would be hypocrisy, wouldn't it?

That is how the GOP won their seats in the House. They were going to "Pay as they go. Hey, even before they are sworn in, they go back on thier words. Gee, was that claim just another political lie?

Come on GOP voices. Give me your solution here!

assuming one has to "pay" for a tax cut is assuming that its the governments money in the first place
what you need to pay for is spending programs

Indeed. And the very idea that government is going to let us keep what we EARN?

Welcome to our soft tyranny.

 

[MaggieMae]

Please don't lie about my positions to try and "win" the argument.

1) I didn't support medicare part D.
2) I didn't support tax cuts without spending cuts
3) I did support both Iraq and Afghanistan wars and still do and I did not support them borrowing the money to run the wars.

If anyone is dodging it is you by lying about me. Please stop now.

When you offer up rationalizations, justifications, and defenses for what Bush and the GOP it's natural to assume you're agreeing with them.

If you disagree with them, why defend them?

I wasn't defending them I was dislodging what I felt was a dishonest post. Claiming the Obama inherited a mess from bush is as lame as claiming that bush inherited a mess from clinton who inherited a mess from bush/reagan who inherited a mess from carter........get it now?

See my sig line .

Except in this particular transition, the economy had not been in such dire straits since the Great Depression. That's quite a plateful of smorgasbord to have to have to deal with. Especially when an angry public wants solutions NOW.

 

[DiveCon]

When you offer up rationalizations, justifications, and defenses for what Bush and the GOP it's natural to assume you're agreeing with them.

If you disagree with them, why defend them?

I wasn't defending them I was dislodging what I felt was a dishonest post. Claiming the Obama inherited a mess from bush is as lame as claiming that bush inherited a mess from clinton who inherited a mess from bush/reagan who inherited a mess from carter........get it now?

See my sig line .

Except in this particular transition, the economy had not been in such dire straits since the Great Depression. That's quite a plateful of smorgasbord to have to have to deal with. Especially when an angry public wants solutions NOW.

funny how we heard that for so many years, then the dems got control of congress and it became a reality

 

[Trajan]

The richest 2% who control 70% of the wealth...they have plenty left over to pay for taxes

no one 'controls' wealth, that is inferring there is none for you. Tha is not correct. There is for all practical purposes an infinite supply of money, if there is a set amount, please tell me how much that we'll discuss it.

 

[Trajan]

And no surprise, none of the liberals are demanding that thier people cut spending so we don't have to keep borrowing.

cut spending on what?

none of the rightwingers will say.

check out Simpson and Bowles deficit commission plan.

 

[Trajan]

I agree with this since tight fiscal policy is nuts during a weak recovery, but it is pretty clear that both sides aren't ready to deal seriously with the deficit.



Senate Deal Would Link Tax Cuts, Jobless Benefits - WSJ.com

We are still a long way from having an adult conversation on the deficit, which will require both spending cuts and tax increases.

The republicans refused to talk.

They told the country they would shut down anything the government tried to do unless the wealthy got their tax cut.

To them everything else didnt matter.

So, why didn't Obama have the balls to call their bluff? Can you imagine the poitical suicide the GOP would have committed by "shutting everything down" right about now?

nothing would have been shut down, they already passed an ongoing amendment to keep funding the NON budget they didn't create as they were supposed to for year 2011.

We are basically funding via temp. ongoing a massive fundiing bill with everything the dems stuffed in the last budget plus extras from 2 years ago.

 

[MaggieMae]

I wasn't defending them I was dislodging what I felt was a dishonest post. Claiming the dems inherited a mess from bush is as lame as claiming that bush inherited a mess from clinton who inherited a mess from bush/reagan who inherited a mess from carter........get it now?

See my sig line .

Bush didn't inherit a mess from Clinton. Bush inherited a surplus and a tax structure that was paying the bills. The economy was slowing down into one of the mildest recessions in recent history.

The Democratic Congress inherited triple digit deficits and a tax structure that could not pay the bills. The economy was slowing down into one of the worst recessions in recent history.

How you can draw equivalence between those 2 scenarios is mystifying.

He inherited an intelligenc and security mess, an espionage mess, and a bursted tech bubble burnt out economy mess.

The dotcom bubble was a mere blip as far as recessions go.

Early 2000s recession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The early 2000s recession was not as bad as many predicted it would be, nor was it as bad as either of the two previous worldwide recessions. Many economists object to characterizing it as a "recession," in the United States, since there were not two consecutive periods of negative growth.

The intelligence failures weren't something the Bush Administration set out to fix, so I don't even know why you would mention those. His own intelligence briefings were ignored much of the time in any event, lax as it might have been. But after 911, Bush Co. set out to "fix" the intelligence apparatus by ADDING a few more levels to mess up the analyses as it gets fed up through the pipeline. Now we have a new behemoth called Homeland Security acting as the Mother Ship for all the myriad "agencies." It's a miracle we haven't been attacked again.

 

[Trajan]

Deficits were in decline until Democrats controlled Congress in 2007.

The country was thrown into war in 2001.

Both are true statements.

The Democrats in Congress, if you want to play this game, took the majority inheriting 2 unpaid for wars, an unpaid for Medicare drug bill - the largest expansion of government healthcare since the sixties - and a slowing economy that was beginning to generate less tax revenue.

and how has this been made any better under their watch over say the 14 months they had absolute control of it all?

 

[boedicca]

nothing would have been shut down, they already passed an ongoing amendment to keep funding the NON budget they didn't create as they were supposed to for year 2011.

We are basically funding via temp. ongoing a massive fundiing bill with everything the dems stuffed in the last budget plus extras from 2 years ago.

It's worse than that. The Lame Duck Dems are working on an Omnibus Bill in order to prevent the GOP from doing anything to restrain spending:

The lame duck Congress wants to tie the hands of the new Congress, limiting the ability to change government as the voters insisted in November. And just like other legislation such as Obamacare, this plan is being drafted in secret, not in the open.

Circulating on Capitol Hill is a draft measure—written by the Senate Democratic majority in backrooms—to fund all the federal government not only through fiscal year (FY) 2011 but also partially into FY 2012. This 183-page plan would:

* Handcuff the ability of newly elected Representatives and Senators to de-fund Obamacare,
* Restrict the new Congress’s leverage to rescind unused “stimulus” and TARP spending,
* Have the outgoing Congress dictate spending for more than the usual one year, and
* Bypass the normal appropriations process of public committee votes, floor debates, and the ability to offer amendments on the floor of the House and Senate.

This is the same outgoing Congress that failed to do its work on time; it should have passed spending bills before fiscal year 2010 ended on September 30. But they didn’t want the voters to witness just how much they wanted to spend, despite our trillion-dollar-plus annual deficits, so no appropriations bills were passed by Congress, and all but a couple of spending bills never even made it out of committee.

Now insiders are crafting a take-it-or-leave it omnibus measure—and who knows what they’ll toss in at the last moment....

Tying the Hands of the New Congress | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.