Plan B Fails

[LnGrrrR]

Boehner couldn't get the votes. So where exactly do Republicans go from here? You know, other than hoping for economic failure until 2014.

[Trainwreck2100]

so does that "no tax" pledge count as being violated when this shit hits the fan

[LnGrrrR]

so does that "no tax" pledge count as being violated when this shit hits the fan

No, because in the fucked up world of Congress, they didn't "vote" for that.

[baseline bum]

No, because in the fucked up world of Congress, they didn't "vote" for that.

What do you think the odds are of going over the fiscal cliff? I think Obama will eventually get what he wants in taxes when the Republicans are scared to cut the increases in military spending. No way they could get away with that in tying it to middle class tax cuts in January should they fail to avoid the cliff.

[Wild Cobra]

Boehner couldn't get the votes. So where exactly do Republicans go from here? You know, other than hoping for economic failure until 2014.
If you mean HR 6684, it passed! Now it's up to the senate and Obama if we go over that cliff.

[LnGrrrR]

If you mean HR 6684, it passed!

No, I meant Plan B, the Plan B that Boehner has been referring to, the Plan B that Boehner proposed instead of the President's plan, the Plan B which he couldn't get enough votes for.

[LnGrrrR]

What do you think the odds are of going over the fiscal cliff? I think Obama will eventually get what he wants in taxes when the Republicans are scared to cut the increases in military spending. No way they could get away with that in tying it to middle class tax cuts in January should they fail to avoid the cliff.

Pretty good now. The House is recessing until after the holidays. I don't doubt Obama's ability to negotiate with himself, but hopefully he's smart enough to just shut up for 2 weeks.

[baseline bum]

If you mean HR 6684, it passed! Now it's up to the senate and Obama if we go over that cliff.

:lmao :lmao :lmao

That worthless piece of shit doesn't have a chance

:lol retarded Republican cheerleader

[Wild Cobra]

No, I meant Plan B, the Plan B that Boehner has been referring to, the Plan B that Boehner proposed instead of the President's plan, the Plan B which he couldn't get enough votes for.
The way the media mixes everything up, need the HR number. HR 6684 passed at 6:36 eastern time. It is now in the hands of the senate.

[LnGrrrR]

:lol No way 6684 gets passed. The fact that it barely passed is atrocious for the House Republicans in the first place. It didnt get a single Democratic vote, which shows how balanced and fair and bipartisan it is.

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao :lmao :lmao

That worthless piece of shit doesn't have a chance

:lol retarded Republican cheerleader
Then it's the democrats driving us over the cliff.

[LnGrrrR]

The way the media mixes everything up, need the HR number. HR 6684 passed at 6:36 eastern time. It is now in the hands of the senate.

Uhmmm how about the bill that would prevent the automatic tax hikes? Or, you know, you could just open up any political website.

[LnGrrrR]

Then it's the democrats driving us over the cliff.

:lmao That's retarded WC, even for you. If that's the best "deal" the Republicans would give the nation, then over the cliff we go. Hell, the Senate even said Plan B would be dead on arrival, and Republicans couldn't even pass that.

"We didn't want to go over the cliff, so we passed this shitty legislation with nothing that Democrats want, even though they have a majority in the Senate. So if they don't pass this shitty bill, it's the Democrat's fault!"

Pretty sure America won't buy that.

[baseline bum]

LOL Capt Republican thinking the bill shifting all cuts away from our national offense has anything to do with tax rates.

[baseline bum]

:lmao That's retarded WC, even for you. If that's the best "deal" the Republicans would give the nation, then over the cliff we go. Hell, the Senate even said Plan B would be dead on arrival, and Republicans couldn't even pass that.

"We didn't want to go over the cliff, so we passed this shitty legislation with nothing that Democrats want, even though they have a majority in the Senate. So if they don't pass this shitty bill, it's the Democrat's fault!"

Pretty sure America won't buy that.

It's two separate bills man. The one shithead is talking about is moving all the spending cuts from our military to everything domestic. Fucking Cantor loves jerking off all over himself.

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao That's retarded WC, even for you. If that's the best "deal" the Republicans would give the nation, then over the cliff we go. Hell, the Senate even said Plan B would be dead on arrival, and Republicans couldn't even pass that.

"We didn't want to go over the cliff, so we passed this shitty legislation with nothing that Democrats want, even though they have a majority in the Senate. So if they don't pass this shitty bill, it's the Democrat's fault!"

Pretty sure America won't buy that.
Say what you will, but since team Obama will not specific what cuts they will accept, it's an impossible task for the republicans to create a compromise bill. The democrats are going to vote down anything that doesn't give them 100% of what they want, so fuck them.

[LnGrrrR]

It's two separate bills man. The one shithead is talking about is moving all the spending cuts from our military to everything domestic. Fucking Cantor loves jerking off all over himself.

Oh, I know. But as soon as 6684 barely passed, I think Boehner knew he was screwed.

[Wild Cobra]

It's two separate bills man. The one shithead is talking about is moving all the spending cuts from our military to everything domestic. Fucking Cantor loves jerking off all over himself.

Yes, they are separate bills. The national defense bill (moving the money) also passed 315 to 107.

[LnGrrrR]

Say what you will, but since team Obama will not specific what cuts they will accept, it's an impossible task for the republicans to create a compromise bill. The democrats are going to vote down anything that doesn't give them 100% of what they want, so fuck them.

The Republicans haven't proposed their own specific cuts either (realistic ones at least). And the plan Obama put on the table involved cuts to Social Security/Medicare, as well as the real possibility of raising the eligibility age.

In fact, it's Republicans that are the ones demanding 100% of what they want. It's why Plan B couldn't get the votes.

[Wild Cobra]

The Republicans haven't proposed their own cuts either. And the plan Obama put on the table involved cuts to Social Security/Medicare, as well as the real possibility of raising the eligibility age.

In fact, it's Republicans that are the ones demanding 100% of what they want. It's why Plan B couldn't get the votes.
SS is a separate pool on money, and not a budget cut that comes from tax revenues. Decreasing SS spending does not decrease the deficit or debt. A very large part of our deficit and debt is money owed to the SS account. The deal was suppose to be an increase in revenue with a decrease of spending, outside of SS/medicare. Or at least that's how I interpret things.

[Wild Cobra]

The Republicans haven't proposed their own specific cuts either (realistic ones at least).
That's because they repeatedly have asked what Obama will accept for cuts, and they keep getting a middle finger shoved in their faces.

[baseline bum]

The Republicans haven't proposed their own specific cuts either (realistic ones at least). And the plan Obama put on the table involved cuts to Social Security/Medicare, as well as the real possibility of raising the eligibility age.

In fact, it's Republicans that are the ones demanding 100% of what they want. It's why Plan B couldn't get the votes.

They can't possibly think the deal gets any better after they go over the cliff. If that happens Obama and the Dems will be able to push for a straight up and down vote on middle class tax cuts without any mention of the estate tax or military spending. LOL if Grover and the teabaggers end up costing them the 2014 house too just like they blew the 2012 presidency and 2010 senate.

[baseline bum]

:lol the Wild Cobra Republicans
:lol Sharron Angle
:lol Christine O'Donnel
:lol Allen West
:lol Paul Ryan wrecking a surefire presidential win

[Wild Cobra]

Do you thing cutting SS is a budget cut that will affect the deficit?

[Trainwreck2100]

:lol obama took it up the ass from republicans the last two years now it's his turn for rape mode

[boutons_deux]

Do you thing cutting SS is a budget cut that will affect the deficit?

WC gets real worried about SS cuts taking HIS money, but cutting OTHER (poor, old, sick, young, disable) PEOPLE'S MONEY is just wonderful.

[boutons_deux]

I heard on NPR last night the conservative groups (aka Kock-suckers) have threatened every Republican with being primary-ed he votes for ANY tax increase.

[Wild Cobra]

WC gets real worried about SS cuts taking HIS money, but cutting OTHER (poor, old, sick, young, disable) PEOPLE'S MONEY is just wonderful.
Seriously.

It is not a spending cuts that applies to the debt ceiling, or deficit.

Please... Get that through your pea-brain.

[boutons_deux]

Seriously.

It is not a spending cuts that applies to the debt ceiling, or deficit.

Please... Get that through your pea-brain.

I, OF COURSE, know SS is separate from govt spending and the deficit, and that SS is NOT IN CRISIS.

And OF COURSE I know that the Repugs/finance sector want SS to "fail" as soon as possible so their privatization of it will allow the Wall St crooks to steal $100Bs every year from those funds, just like they do now with 401's, etc.

[Wild Cobra]

You don't get it.

SS is not going to do squat for the fiscal cliff.

[spursncowboys]

Boehner couldn't get the votes. So where exactly do Republicans go from here? You know, other than hoping for economic failure until 2014.
He can't kick all fiscal conservatives off of their leadership positions and then expect them to play ball.

[spursncowboys]

:lol obama took it up the ass from republicans the last two years now it's his turn for rape mode
Obama sat back and let Reid and Pelosi do all the work (not one budget to date from Reid) and now he thinks he can strong arm. It won't work! Dems need to accept that they will have to come up some meaningful spending cuts. Ultimately as Bob Woodward said "Obama would own the fiscal cliff economy." Bush knew that and that is why he accepted Delay's raping of American's money.

[DMX7]

Obama sat back and let Reid and Pelosi do all the work (not one budget to date from Reid) and now he thinks he can strong arm. It won't work! Dems need to accept that they will have to come up some meaningful spending cuts. Ultimately as Bob Woodward said "Obama would own the fiscal cliff economy." Bush knew that and that is why he accepted Delay's raping of American's money.

You're delusional.

If we go over the fiscal cliff, Obama and Reid will propose a tax cut for everyone earning less than $250,000 and dare republicans to vote against it with the pressure on. The American people will side with dems and repugs in congress will look like terrible rich loving lunatics.

[boutons_deux]

"Dems need to accept that they will have to come up some meaningful spending cuts."

If Repugs want cuts, they should list the cuts THEY want. Their game is obvious, Dems make the cuts, then Repugs blame the Dems for the blowback for making cuts.

[coyotes_geek]

What do you think the odds are of going over the fiscal cliff?

99%. Boehner & Co have moved on from trying to find a solution and gone into pre-emptive blame-game mode.

[spursncowboys]

You're delusional.

If we go over the fiscal cliff, Obama and Reid will propose a tax cut for everyone earning less than $250,000 and dare republicans to vote against it with the pressure on. The American people will side with dems and repugs in congress will look like terrible rich loving lunatics.
These are the Bush tax cuts I thought. So the dems aren't giving anyone a tax cut.

I don't think that will be enough for Obama to be the only President who wasn't associated with the economy while he was President. Now if they did 2:1 Real spending cuts to tax raises, then it would be enough if the GOP still didn't agree. Whether we are going over the cliff or not, Obama is ruining his chances of getting anything done for his second term with his strong arm tactic.

[boutons_deux]

"Obama is ruining his chances of getting anything done for his second term with his strong arm tactic."

The Repugs will obstruct, as they have for 4 years, ANYTHING the Dems propose, even if the Repugs proposed it themselves in the past. The power of NO far exceeds the power of YES. The Repugs are the Tyranny of the NO Minority.

[TeyshaBlue]

99%. Boehner & Co have moved on from trying to find a solution and gone into pre-emptive blame-game mode.

This.

Fuck 'em.

[boutons_deux]

Boner couldn't get his tea bagger anarchists to suck down his own weak Plan B (which wasn't acceptable to Dems, either), then he will never get the tea baggers nutcases to accept ANYTHING from the Dems.

Into 2013 and over the bogus cliff.

Fiscal Cliff Doing Republicans No Favors
http://www.motherjones.com/files/blog_gop_extreme_december_2012.jpg
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/12/fiscal-cliff-doing-republicans-no-favors

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

If you think anything is getting done before the last few days of the year.....:lol

[boutons_deux]

other Repug bullshit

Conservatives Used ‘Religious Liberty’ To Undermine Equality In Defense Bill Debate (http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/12/21/1369021/republicans-used-religious-liberty-strategy-to-undermine-equality-in-defense-bill-debate/)

instead of working to pass the single most important bill to our military, anti-gay Republicans have spent the year playing politics with our national security by inserting irrelevant amendments in the defense bill that are squarely aimed at rolling back the military’s strides toward LGBT equality following “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.

Earlier this year, Rep. Todd “Legitimate Rape (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/08/19/711991/gop-senate-candidate-victims-of-legitimate-rape-wont-become-pregnant/)” Akin (R-MO) succeeded in including a harmful and anti-gay “conscious clause (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/news/2012/10/15/41517/religious-liberty-does-not-give-people-a-license-to-discriminate/)” in the House version of the defense bill. If the Akin provision were to be included in the NDAA in its entirety, it would give service members the legal right to discriminate, harass, and intimidate (http://www.washingtonblade.com/2012/12/18/defense-budget-bill-includes-conscience-provision/) LGB troops. And in doing so it would pose a danger to troops’ health and safety, it would undermine unit cohesion, and — as the White House has stated — it would be a threat to the good order and discipline necessary for military effectiveness. Luckily, the Senate version of the bill did not include this harmful provision.

As the House and Senate began to reconcile the differences between the two bills, Akin and other Republicans, including Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), have pushed to include Akin’s “license to discriminate (http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/12/18/1352801/republicans-continue-pushing-for-military-license-to-bully/)” provision in the final version. McCain was, of course, a fierce opponent (http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2010/12/02/177159/mccain-grumpy-dadt/) of DADT repeal. McKeon said that he’d rather see Congress fail to pass a defense bill for the first time in a half century than pass a bill that failed into include anti-gay amendments.

In the reconciled version of the Pentagon bill, Congress has sadly retained the Akin amendment, though not in its entirety. What remains is a watered down version (http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/12/18/1357351/defense-budget-advances-with-license-to-bully-provision/) which reaffirms the right of troops and chaplains to hold anti-gay views as long as they are not actively discriminating against LGB service members. In other words, the amended Akin provision simply reiterates existing religious liberty protections that service members and chaplains already enjoy.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/12/21/1369021/republicans-used-religious-liberty-strategy-to-undermine-equality-in-defense-bill-debate/

[boutons_deux]

How The Pro-Gun Lobby Snuck Extra Protections For Gun Owners Into Obamacare (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/12/20/1366601/pro-gun-lobby-obamacare-provision-gun-owners/) NRA-backed Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), the Obamacare subsection titled “Protection of Second Amendment Gun Rights” (http://www.ncsl.org/documents/health/ppaca-consolidated.pdf#page=19) makes it illegal for wellness and better-living programs to require “the disclosure or collection of any information relating to… the presence or storage of a lawfully-possessed firearm or ammunition in the residence or on the property of an individual; or… the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition by an individual.” The provision also prohibits insurers from using a patient’s gun possession status in order to determine premium rates.

Supporters might argue that gun ownership is a personal choice, and that patients should have a right to privacy from providers and insurers on such a matter. But critics say the provision stifles meaningful dialogue between providers and patients on an issue that undeniably has implications for public health and medical costs.

As University of Pennsylvania social policy professor Susan Sorenson puts it (http://capsules.kaiserhealthnews.org/index.php/2012/12/the-gun-lobbys-favorite-part-of-the-health-law/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Capsules-TheKhnBlog+%28Capsules+-+The+KHN+Blog%29), “A lot of people buy guns every year, and it’s a health concern… To regulate what the provider can or can’t do really intrudes into the role of the health care provider, which is to ensure the health of the individual and the people who are living in that home.”

And Obamacare doesn’t extend this privacy to other costly lifestyle choices. Last month, the Obama administration issued a rule allowing insurers to consider patients’ smoking histories (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/11/20/1222291/three-things-obamacare-rule/) when setting their premium rates. Gun violence costs Americans $5.6 billion in annual medical bills (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/12/17/1347631/gun-violence-costs-americans-every-year/), but the totals are actually closer to $100 billion per year — the same number that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimates that smoking costs Americans each year (http://www.cdc.gov/features/TobaccoControlData/) in medical costs — when accounting for lost productivity.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/12/20/1366601/pro-gun-lobby-obamacare-provision-gun-owners/

[boutons_deux]

Milk Prices Likely To Soar In January After Republican Obstruction Blocked The Farm Bill In The House (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/12/21/1370911/milk-prices-likely-to-soar-in-january-after-republican-obstruction-blocked-the-farm-bill-in-the-house/)

House Republicans let the five-year farm bill expire (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/10/01/congress-just-let-the-farm-bill-expire-its-not-the-end-of-the-world-yet/) at the end of September without a new law to replace the massive measure covering billions of dollars in programs, including food stamps and agriculture subsidies. The Senate passed (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/09/13/843311/house-farm-bill-three-weeks/) its own bipartisan, 10-year farm bill in June, and House Democrats and farm state Republicans attempted to force the House to consider a bill to replace it. But the GOP leadership steadfastly refused (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/09/13/843311/house-farm-bill-three-weeks/) to vote on it.

As a result, milk prices could jump as high as $6 to $8 per gallon (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/us/milk-prices-could-double-as-farm-bill-stalls.html?hp&_r=2&) after Jan. 1, when the government will revert to following antiquated 1949 regulations without a farm bill in place:

Under the current program, the government sets a minimum price to cover dairy farmers’ production costs. If the market price drops below that, the government buys dairy products from farmers to buoy prices and increase demand. Since milk prices have remained above that minimum price in recent years, dairy farmers usually do better by selling their products commercially rather than to the government.

But if 1949 rules go into effect, the government would be required to buy dairy products at around $40 per hundredweight — roughly twice the current market price — to drive up the price of milk to cover dairy producers’ cost.

“It would be bad for consumer demand in the long run,” said Chris Galen, a spokesman for the National Milk Producers Federation, which represents more than 32,000 dairy farmers.


http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/12/21/1370911/milk-prices-likely-to-soar-in-january-after-republican-obstruction-blocked-the-farm-bill-in-the-house/ (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/12/21/1370911/milk-prices-likely-to-soar-in-january-after-republican-obstruction-blocked-the-farm-bill-in-the-house/)

[TeyshaBlue]

lol...RSS apocalypse

[boutons_deux]

lol...RSS apocalypse

TB :lol Always ready to trash a widely used Internet protocol. What a badass little bitch :lol

[Koolaid_Man]

You don't get it.

SS is not going to do squat for the fiscal cliff.



I personally hope we go over the cliff...I want to see America fail...I want to see white people lose their 401k's and feel what it is to live paycheck to paycheck....like most black people....it's been time for the cliff..the beauty of it all is that once we go over..Repubs will get the blame... :hat

Ticket - Hillary Clinton / Michelle Obama - 2016 that is an unstoppable ticket

[TeyshaBlue]

TB :lol Always ready to trash a widely used Internet protocol. What a badass little bitch :lol

boutons :lol Always ready to waste a widely used Internet protocol. What a badass little bitch. :lol

[TeyshaBlue]

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/Ohhh.gif

[Koolaid_Man]

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a68/Koolbreezey/1st.jpg

[ElNono]

This is just the appetizer... Next up is the debt ceiling 'negotitations'... I wonder if Bohner should even show up. Can't seemingly control his own guys...

[baseline bum]

If you think anything is getting done before the last few days of the year.....:lol

They have to. It's the Republicans' only leverage to stop the military cuts, which the Democrats will surely end up conceding to if it avoids the cliff. All that dries up Janaury 1st.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I don't think you saw the point of my post. I think something will get done before the end of the year.....I'm saying it's gonna be very very last minute.

[SnakeBoy]

I personally hope we go over the cliff...I want to see America fail...I want to see white people lose their 401k's and feel what it is to live paycheck to paycheck....like most black people....it's been time for the cliff..the beauty of it all is that once we go over..Repubs will get the blame... :hat

Ticket - Hillary Clinton / Michelle Obama - 2016 that is an unstoppable ticket

LOL, what the hell do you think the "cliff" is? Spending cuts (needed) and a return to Clinton tax rates (also needed). Big fucking deal. Funny to see all the democrats act like the Clinton tax rates were the most horrible thing to ever happen to the middle class.

[Drachen]

..... and LnGrrrR is having a september baby.

[Wild Cobra]

This is just the appetizer... Next up is the debt ceiling 'negotitations'... I wonder if Bohner should even show up. Can't seemingly control his own guys...
There you go again with your authoritarian views. You think the other republicans are going to be controlled? Maybe Obama can control the demonrats, but most these republicans are saying no to the tax increases Obama wants, especially without the cuts specified.

Please... show me where the democrats have specified any cuts that will affect the deficit.

[Wild Cobra]

..... and LnGrrrR is having a september baby.
Must be wanting another $1k tax credit...

[boutons_deux]

...

[Th'Pusher]

There you go again with your authoritarian views. You think the other republicans are going to be controlled? Maybe Obama can control the demonrats, but most these republicans are saying no to the tax increases Obama wants, especially without the cuts specified.

Please... show me where the democrats have specified any cuts that will affect the deficit.
Why is it that you think it is the democrats' responsibility to specify cuts? If republicans are pushing for cuts they should specify what they want. The democrats are pushing for revenues and have been very specific about what revenue they want.

[Borat Sagyidev]

Must be wanting another $1k tax credit...


Oh, the republican insights to life. Tell us more oh might wise internet stalker.

[Borat Sagyidev]

There you go again with your authoritarian views. You think the other republicans are going to be controlled? Maybe Obama can control the demonrats, but most these republicans are saying no to the tax increases Obama wants, especially without the cuts specified.

Please... show me where the democrats have specified any cuts that will affect the deficit.


Why is it that you think it is the democrats' responsibility to specify cuts? If republicans are pushing for cuts they should specify what they want. The democrats are pushing for revenues and have been very specific about what revenue they want.

The Democrats have specified cuts in Republican influence. It´s simply pointless to argue with them, it´s borderline mental insanity.

[Wild Cobra]

Why is it that you think it is the democrats' responsibility to specify cuts? If republicans are pushing for cuts they should specify what they want. The democrats are pushing for revenues and have been very specific about what revenue they want.
Are you joking? You are sorely misinformed if you are serious. The democrats will strike down any cuts the republicans come up with, and claim it wasn't bipartisan. The republicans have been asking for the democrats to tell them what they will accept for cuts to pass in the senate and not be vetoed. They get no answers.

[LnGrrrR]

..... and LnGrrrR (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=14319) is having a september baby.

Nope, already had one last year. :lol

[LnGrrrR]

Must be wanting another $1k tax credit...

Thankfully that $1k completely covers the cost of raising a child and then some :tu

[Wild Cobra]

Thankfully that $1k completely covers the cost of raising a child and then some :tu
It shouldn't be there. I did just fine without such credits when my kids were growing up. Yes, it costs much more to raise kids. Would you have kids if you couldn't afford to?

[Th'Pusher]

Are you joking? You are sorely misinformed if you are serious. The democrats will strike down any cuts the republicans come up with, and claim it wasn't bipartisan. The republicans have been asking for the democrats to tell them what they will accept for cuts to pass in the senate and not be vetoed. They get no answers.
Lol. You don't seem to understand how negotiation works. Democrats are not going to come out and list a bunch of cuts to entitlement programs so the republicans can reject it then campaign in 2014 that democrats wanted to make huge cuts to SS and Medicare. If republicans want to cut entitlements, they need to specify what cuts they want as a part of a larger deal that raises revenue and cuts entitlements. Obama put chained CPI on the table and Boehner didn't even counter the offer. Instead, they came up with plan b and they couldn't even get that passed in their own caucus. Ball is in their court.

[LnGrrrR]

It shouldn't be there. I did just fine without such credits when my kids were growing up. Yes, it costs much more to raise kids. Would you have kids if you couldn't afford to?

Sure, of course. I don't necessarily think we need the reduction, but I don't think it's likely to go anywhere. Republicans are usually about lowering taxes, not raising them on families. That doesn't really look good politically-speaking.

[Wild Cobra]

Sure, of course. I don't necessarily think we need the reduction, but I don't think it's likely to go anywhere. Republicans are usually about lowering taxes, not raising them on families. That doesn't really look good politically-speaking.
I'm with the republicans on keeping taxes low, I'm just against them when they talk about tax credits.

[Borat Sagyidev]

It shouldn't be there. I did just fine without such credits when my kids were growing up. Yes, it costs much more to raise kids. Would you have kids if you couldn't afford to?


Thankfully that $1k completely covers the cost of raising a child and then some :tu


The Republican logic is baffling. More concerned about a 1k tax credit than subsidies to the tunes of billions and trillions to the oil and financial industries.

[Wild Cobra]

Lol. You don't seem to understand how negotiation works. Democrats are not going to come out and list a bunch of cuts to entitlement programs so the republicans can reject it then campaign in 2014 that democrats wanted to make huge cuts to SS and Medicare. If republicans want to cut entitlements, they need to specify what cuts they want as a part of a larger deal that raises revenue and cuts entitlements. Obama put chained CPI on the table and Boehner didn't even counter the offer. Instead, they came up with plan b and they couldn't even get that passed in their own caucus. Ball is in their court.
There you go. Democrats worried about reelection rather than doing the right thing. The party that couldn't even pass a budget when they controlled both houses, and you want to blame the republicans playing politics...

Think about what you are saying for a moment. The senate hasn't been passing anything the republics send them budget wise. Why will this change? The house is asking the democrats to tell them what they can cut. SS is not a cut that will affect the deficit.

I'll say that again in case the fact elludes you.

Cutting SS, the chained CPI, etc. has absolutely no effect on the deficit or debt.

Now... If you believe that is a cut for the purpose of this package, then you really don't know shit.

[Th'Pusher]

There you go. Democrats worried about reelection rather than doing the right thing. The party that couldn't even pass a budget when they controlled both houses, and you want to blame the republicans playing politics...

Think about what you are saying for a moment. The senate hasn't been passing anything the republics send them budget wise. Why will this change? The house is asking the democrats to tell them what they can cut. SS is not a cut that will affect the deficit.

I'll say that again in case the fact elludes you.

Cutting SS, the chained CPI, etc. has absolutely no effect on the deficit or debt.

Now... If you believe that is a cut for the purpose of this package, then you really don't know shit.

Ok WC. You're not running for reelection in 2014. Tell me specifically what cuts you would like to see the democrats offer up.

[Wild Cobra]

Ok WC. You're not running for reelection in 2014. Tell me specifically what cuts you would like to see the democrats offer up.
For starters, the food stamp program is way too generous. That can easily be cut to about 75% of the current speeding level. I'm sure it could be cut even deeper, but I wouldn't try to quantify anything past the 25% cut. That's just one program, and I know for every one I bring up, you will be acting like Chump to "give specifics."

We are way too generous to people in our handout programs, with little or no accountability. I was just thinking earlier today of when the economy recovered during the last four recessions I can remember. It happened when the government stopped extending unemployment insurance. Funny thing, people started working again!

[ChumpDumper]

Would the opposite of Freakonomics be Tardonomics?

[ElNono]

There you go again with your authoritarian views. You think the other republicans are going to be controlled?

What do you think elected Bohner in the leadership position he has on the House? Are you saying Bohner is going rogue when he negotiates with the White House?

Maybe you're just stupid... lol you calling anybody authoritarian...

[Th'Pusher]

For starters, the food stamp program is way too generous. That can easily be cut to about 75% of the current speeding level. I'm sure it could be cut even deeper, but I wouldn't try to quantify anything pat the 25% cut. That's just one program, and I know for every one I bring up, you will be acting like Chump to "give specifics."

We are way too generous to people in our handout programs, with little or no accountability. I was just thinking earlier today of when the economy recovered during the last four recessions I can remember. It happened when the government stopped extending unemployment insurance. Funny thing, people started working again!
Ok. Right now a family of 4 is eligible for SNAP if their net income is just under $2k per month. They grt about $650 per month which goes right back into the economy as it's not a cash transfer. You'd like to see that reduced?

[Wild Cobra]

Ok. Right now a family of 4 is eligible for SNAP if their net income is just under $2k per month. They grt about $650 per month which goes right back into the economy as it's not a cash transfer. You'd like to see that reduced?
Yes. Reduce it.

Have you been around people who are eligible for food stamps? They could make wiser buying choices, and still eat well.

That $650/month is more than $21/day. There is something wrong if you can't feed a family of 4 on $15/day, and if someone has $2k net, should the government even be paying close to that? What are they doing? Buying steaks and all premade food that you pop in the microwave?

As for going into the economy...

Fuck subsidies!

[Wild Cobra]

What do you think elected Bohner in the leadership position he has on the House? Are you saying Bohner is going rogue when he negotiates with the White House?

Maybe you're just stupid... lol you calling anybody authoritarian...
It's just every time I turn around, you think one person should control another. We elect our politicians to do what we want. not what one wants.

[ElNono]

It's just every time I turn around, you think one person should control another. We elect our politicians to do what we want. not what one wants.

So why do you think they themselves elect leadership positions within the party?
BTW, it isn't me who came up with this whole 'party alignment', thingie... Politics have been conducted like that for only a few *centuries*...

lol every time I turn around
lol shooting beaners at the border

[Wild Cobra]

lol shooting beaners at the border
LOL...

Losing your PC these days?

[ChumpDumper]

Yes. Reduce it.

Have you been around people who are eligible for food stamps?Have you? Tell us about it.

[Th'Pusher]

Yes. Reduce it.

Have you been around people who are eligible for food stamps? They could make wiser buying choices, and still eat well.

That $650/month is more than $21/day. There is something wrong if you can't feed a family of 4 on $15/day, and if someone has $2k net, should the government even be paying close to that? What are they doing? Buying steaks and all premade food that you pop in the microwave?

As for going into the economy...

Fuck subsidies!
So $5 a meal to feed a family of 4? How much will your proposal reduce SNAP costs annually?

[Wild Cobra]

So $5 a meal to feed a family of 4? How much will your proposal reduce SNAP costs annually?
Are you suggesting that with a $2k monthly after tax take home pay, the family cannot furnish some or all of the food themselves?

Why do you want us other tax payers to pay for it?

[Th'Pusher]

Are you suggesting that with a $2k monthly after tax take home pay, the family cannot furnish some or all of the food themselves?

Why do you want us other tax payers to pay for it?

Can you tell me who negotiated the current eligibility requirements for food stamps?

I'd obviously prefer SNAP recipients to earn a living wage. Unfortunately, that is not always possible.

[Wild Cobra]

Can you tell me who negotiated the current eligibility requirements for food stamps?

I'd obviously prefer SNAP recipients to earn a living wage. Unfortunately, that is not always possible.
I don't know, and I don't care. It is excessive and wrong. We need to move away from such easy and generous handouts, and promote the idea of self sufficiency.

[ElNono]

I don't know, and I don't care. It is excessive and wrong. We need to move away from such easy and generous handouts, and promote the idea of self sufficiency.

Under the same criteria, you're then ok with ending big oil and farm subsidies, correct?

[Th'Pusher]

I don't know, and I don't care. It is excessive and wrong. We need to move away from such easy and generous handouts, and promote the idea of self sufficiency.
I don't think it's excessive. The annual cost of the program seems excessive because more people qualify as a result of the ressesion. I'd rather focus on policy that allows more people to earn a living wage so that they don't qualify for the program.

[Wild Cobra]

Under the same criteria, you're then ok with ending big oil and farm subsidies, correct?
Subsidies, yes. I think we disagree on that term though.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't think it's excessive. The annual cost of the program seems excessive because more people qualify as a result of the ressesion.
I'm sorry, but it's so much cheaper to buy flour and sugar, and other ingredients, and cook from scratch. It is very affordable.

The money people get for food stamp like programs is excessive. No doubt in my mind.

I'd rather focus on policy that allows more people to earn a living wage so that they don't qualify for the program.
Good.

Maybe you would agree that taxing job providers make them less competitive to overseas outsourcing?

[Th'Pusher]

Good.

Maybe you would agree that taxing job providers make them less competitive to overseas outsourcing?
I'd be in favor of eliminating loopholes, reducing the corporate tax rate in an effort to level the playing field although when a living wage in a 3rd world country is less than a dollar a day, reducing corporate taxes to zero is still not going eliminate outsourcing. We just have to accept that some jobs are never returning. We need policy that invests ina nd encourages innovation so that new, higher paying jobs are created.

Individual income tax rates and cap gains are another story.

[Wild Cobra]

I'd be in favor of eliminating loopholes, reducing the corporate tax rate in an effort to level the playing field although when a living wage in a 3rd world country is less than a dollar a day, reducing corporate taxes to zero is still not going eliminate outsourcing.
Wages are rarely more than 20% of a products pricing. They are usually much less than that. I will suggest you consider how the difference in wages vs. the shipping cost of a product from overseas compares. past that, we have government imposed regulations and taxes, making our workforce less competitive than other places in the world. One huge new one, which I predict will destroy us within three decades, is "Obamacare."

We just have to accept that some jobs are never returning.
I accept that is the truth, as long as we keep whoring our votes out to politicians that promise us things. I do not accept that we have to keep electing these same types of politicians.

We need policy that invests ina nd encourages innovation so that new, higher paying jobs are created.

It doesn't matter as long as the products from these innovations will be manufactured in Malaysia, China, japan, Columbia, etc.


Individual income tax rates and cap gains are another story.

I know this sounds harsh, but I say all income earners need to have "skin in the game" by paying at least a small tax, or that we need to change our elections so that only tax payers can vote for politicians.

[ChumpDumper]

Wages are rarely more than 20% of a products pricing.So labor cost can make a huge difference in a company's bottom line.

Thanks.

[Wild Cobra]

So labor cost can make a huge difference in a company's bottom line.

Thanks.
Wow...

I see you aren't only a master-baiter, but you are a master cherry picker as well.

I have a friend who own a Cherry Orchard in The Dalles, if you need a job.

[ElNono]

Subsidies, yes. I think we disagree on that term though.

What term?

[Wild Cobra]

What term?
Of what defines a subsidy.

[ChumpDumper]

Wow...

I see you aren't only a master-baiter, but you are a master cherry picker as well.

I have a friend who own a Cherry Orchard in The Dalles, if you need a job.Considering the margins at which companies work, it makes sense.

Thanks for providing your statistics, bullshit though they probably are.

[ElNono]

I will suggest you consider how the difference in wages vs. the shipping cost of a product from overseas compares.

So how does it compares, in your opinion?

I'm actually pretty sure that for any significant volume, shipping is way cheaper.

[ElNono]

Of what defines a subsidy.

Dictionary not good enough?

a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public

[ChumpDumper]

Expect a page or two arguing about whether tax breaks are subsidies.

[Wild Cobra]

So how does it compares, in your opinion?

I'm actually pretty sure that for any significant volume, shipping is way cheaper.
It depends on the price density. Quantities of cell phones for example will always be cheaper to import. You can't bring US taxes down enough for something that small and costly. Still, the constitution provided an insightful tool that is being eliminated more and more as the years go by. It's called a "tariff."

[Wild Cobra]

Dictionary not good enough?

a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public
Even dictionaries today, change by popular belief and usage.

The last definition of "subsidy" I looked up under the definitions used by the government, was that a subsidy was money paid out. I seem to recall you calling a tax break a subsidy. Paying less taxes and the government receiving less revenue, is not the same as the government paying out!

[Wild Cobra]

Expect a page or two arguing about whether tax breaks are subsidies.
No need.

A tax break is not a subsidy. A tax credit is.

[CuckingFunt]

Expect a page or two arguing about whether tax breaks are subsidies.


I seem to recall you calling a tax break a subsidy.

Giggle.

[Wild Cobra]

Giggle.
Why?

We had this discussion before. Chump simply remembers. It wasn't a prediction to have any special merit. For it to go otherwise would mean ElNono or myself changed our position.

[ElNono]

It depends on the price density. Quantities of cell phones for example will always be cheaper to import. You can't bring US taxes down enough for something that small and costly. Still, the constitution provided an insightful tool that is being eliminated more and more as the years go by. It's called a "tariff."

A tariff, however, is inherently a distortion in a free market.

What you're telling me is that the free market failed and you want protection from the free market in the form of tariffs...

In other words, the free market shouldn't be free when it's not working for us.

BTW, subsidies work pretty much the same way. Strange you would be for tariffs and against subsidies.

[ElNono]

No need.

A tax break is not a subsidy. A tax credit is.

How is giving up revenue not giving up money?

It works the same in government as in everything else. If you're giving a discount it's coming out of your pocket.

[Wild Cobra]

A tariff, however, is inherently a distortion in a free market.

So?


What you're telling me is that the free market failed and you want protection from the free market in the form of tariffs...

Only from a global scale.


In other words, the free market shouldn't be free when it's not working for us.

We shouldn't have such "free trade" agreements. Tariffs are there, in the constitution, for a reason.


BTW, subsidies work pretty much the same way. Strange you would be for tariffs and against subsidies.

Really?

Please explain to us children how they work the same.

[CuckingFunt]

Why?

We had this discussion before. Chump simply remembers. It wasn't a prediction to have any special merit. For it to go otherwise would mean ElNono or myself changed our position.

Considering the posts that have followed, I stand by my giggle.

[ElNono]

So?
Only from a global scale.

So you don't think the free market works in a global scale, or you stopped liking it when you got the bad side of the coin?


We shouldn't have such "free trade" agreements. Tariffs are there, in the constitution, for a reason.

Trade agreements are on the Constitution too... Article I, section 10, clause 3 and Article II, section 2, clause 2.



Really?

Please explain to us children how they work the same.

Sure. Both methods seek the same end result: artificially creating a competitive balance. Tariffs do it by artificially increasing the price of imported goods so the local producer can compete with imports.

Subsidies do the exact same by artificially reducing the price of local goods so they're competitive with imported goods.

[Wild Cobra]

So you don't think the free market works in a global scale, or you stopped liking it when you got the bad side of the coin?

I have been very consistent on my views of free trade. Don't you remember?


Trade agreements are on the Constitution too... Article I, section 10, clause 3 and Article II, section 2, clause 2.

I'm speaking of Article 1 section 8:


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


Sure. Both methods seek the same end result: artificially creating a competitive balance. Tariffs do it by artificially increasing the price of imported goods so the local producer can compete with imports.

Yes. Do you have a problem with that?


Subsidies do the exact same by artificially reducing the price of local goods so they're competitive with imported goods.

One is a tax revenue create, the other is a payment made by the government.

You beloved subsidy becomes another burden on our budget system. The tariff is a revenue enhancer. they are complete opposites in that regard.

[ElNono]

I have been very consistent on my views of free trade. Don't you remember?

To be frank, no. I'm pretty sure not that long ago you were telling us how the free market 'self-corrects' and what not.
Apparently, there should have been a big ass asterisk on that comment (not globally).


I'm speaking of Article 1 section 8:

I know what youre talking about, all I'm saying is that agreements are just as constitutional.


Yes. Do you have a problem with that?

I have mostly two concerns with tariffs, which are the common ones: once you start penalizing certain countries and goods, there's no reason for other countries not to penalize US exports the same way. Basically, it's a protectionist measure that doesn't even really address the actual problem: you cannot compete at this time.

The second concern is basic economics: price inflation on goods = reduction of purchasing power. You basically get an inflation bump and, as noted before, you're not really solving the problem.


One is a tax revenue create, the other is a payment made by the government.

You beloved subsidy becomes another burden on our budget system. The tariff is a revenue enhancer. they are complete opposites in that regard.

Oh I know the difference is who foots the bill. Trade tariffs are rarely long term revenue generators though, because they never really address the main problem (lack of competitiveness), so at some point the producing country will simply scale back or find a better partner with higher margins.

[Wild Cobra]

My view on trade agreements between us and other countries is very consistent. I was only for NAFTA, and that is because we are immediate neighbors with Mexico. I saw it as a win-win for us, which i would have never agree with if they were not our immediate neighbors. I have always voices favoritism to NAFTA, and always voiced concern over the rest of our free trade policies when dealing with nations of such low living standards.

I understand your concern with tariffs. It's a false idea that countries will do a tit-for-tat, and even if so, what is the worse case situation? We stop buying $5 billion of their goods, and they stop buying $50 million of ours? I don't see a problem when there is a trade imbalance to begin with.

You are myopic about the purchasing power. You are not seeing the larger picture. We already are on the downward spiral of less purchasing power. Look at property, food, and energy prices. The increasing supply of cheap goods only covers up the reality of what has been happening all along. This is now, a vicious circle that we must stop. We need to bring back these higher wage manufacturing jobs that we have been losing. we need to increase our average worker pay by more employment, less unemployment rate. Supply and demand works with worker salaries too you know. Obama and his rich elitist buddies love this high unemployment rate. They don't have to pay competitive wages!

I have a hard time believing you understand who foots the bill. Only a socialist or communist would be happy to subsidize the national marketplace, at the increasing burden of others. What else do you want to nationalize? Isn't healthcare enough?

[ElNono]

My view on trade agreements between us and other countries is very consistent. I was only for NAFTA, and that is because we are immediate neighbors with Mexico. I saw it as a win-win for us, which i would have never agree with if they were not our immediate neighbors. I have always voices favoritism to NAFTA, and always voiced concern over the rest of our free trade policies when dealing with nations of such low living standards.

So what free trade agreements are you talking about when it comes to China/India/Indonesia/etc/etc?

I think we have a 'most favored nation' agreement with China that dates back to many years, but other than that, I'm pretty sure it's regular commerce.

Now, personally, I'm not a huge fan of FTA myself, as they're yet another market distortion mechanism. While I'm not necessarily a free market purist, I think these agreements should work both ways, and they rarely do.


I understand your concern with tariffs. It's a false idea that countries will do a tit-for-tat, and even if so, what is the worse case situation? We stop buying $5 billion of their goods, and they stop buying $50 million of ours? I don't see a problem when there is a trade imbalance to begin with.

Well, it's easy to see the problem... It's not just that country that has to do it. If Brazil all of a sudden wants to start charging tariffs on US petrol products, what authority does the US has to tell them not to do it when the US does it too with other nations? That's why the US normally uses tariffs of very specific items.


You are myopic about the purchasing power. You are not seeing the larger picture. We already are on the downward spiral of less purchasing power. Look at property, food, and energy prices. The increasing supply of cheap goods only covers up the reality of what has been happening all along. This is now, a vicious circle that we must stop. We need to bring back these higher wage manufacturing jobs that we have been losing. we need to increase our average worker pay by more employment, less unemployment rate. Supply and demand works with worker salaries too you know. Obama and his rich elitist buddies love this high unemployment rate. They don't have to pay competitive wages!

That's a pretty cool rant, but as far as economics go, pretty superficial. There's no why we must have back these high paying manufacturing jobs or why are we in this vicious cycle, or what the vicious cycle even is.

In fact, per the free market, all those things should just happen naturally: China keeps reaping record profits from trade with the US, the increased wealth creates a higher standard of living in China, and so such increase makes us competitive again. When you look at why its not happening, you have to look at the peculiarities of China, specifically what they do with their currency.


I have a hard time believing you understand who foots the bill. Only a socialist or communist would be happy to subsidize the national marketplace, at the increasing burden of others. What else do you want to nationalize? Isn't healthcare enough?

Cool story, but wrong per par. I'm not a fan of subsidies, but I understand why sometimes they have to be done as a matter of national security (ie: food)

[sook]

Why do republicans hate america so much?

[Wild Cobra]

So what free trade agreements are you talking about when it comes to China/India/Indonesia/etc/etc?

I think we have a 'most favored nation' agreement with China that dates back to many years, but other than that, I'm pretty sure it's regular commerce.

I'm against all of them except NAFTA, regardless of name. Imports need to be taxed to a level that they do not unfairly compete against our own goods. If it's something we cannot do here, then I'm Ok with no tariff.


Now, personally, I'm not a huge fan of FTA myself, as they're yet another market distortion mechanism. While I'm not necessarily a free market purist, I think these agreements should work both ways, and they rarely do.

Well, as long as we are a wealthier nation than others, we will have a net trade imbalance. This is simply because we have a larger purchasing power than most other countries.


Well, it's easy to see the problem... It's not just that country that has to do it. If Brazil all of a sudden wants to start charging tariffs on US petrol products, what authority does the US has to tell them not to do it when the US does it too with other nations? That's why the US normally uses tariffs of very specific items.

Let them charge what ever tariff they want. that is between them and their people as to how much higher prices they want to pay and how much less they want to buy. Are you now suddenly worried about EXXON, BP, etc?


That's a pretty cool rant, but as far as economics go, pretty superficial. There's no why we must have back these high paying manufacturing jobs or why are we in this vicious cycle, or what the vicious cycle even is.

If that's what you wish to believe. Just what idea do you have to return people working? More fast food joints?


In fact, per the free market, all those things should just happen naturally: China keeps reaping record profits from trade with the US, the increased wealth creates a higher standard of living in China, and so such increase makes us competitive again. When you look at why its not happening, you have to look at the peculiarities of China, specifically what they do with their currency.

Yes, as their average standard of living increases, and ours decreases, at some point, we will be equal trading partners.

Do you really want our standard of living to go down that far?


Cool story, but wrong per par. I'm not a fan of subsidies, but I understand why sometimes they have to be done as a matter of national security (ie: food)

I can understand farming subsidies. More than keeping prices low, it was to keep farmers farming, so we would always have crops. That doesn't mean I agree with the subsidies, I simple acknowledge the purpose. Now, for example, that corn is required for the mandated ethanol in gasoline, don't you think it's time to stop subsidizing it?

[scott]

Still, the constitution provided an insightful tool that is being eliminated more and more as the years go by. It's called a "tariff."

It's a good thing that macroeconomics hasn't evolved over the last 225 years, otherwise this might be viewed as a terribly stupid, myopic statement completely detached from modern realities.

[scott]

Only a socialist or communist would be happy to subsidize the national marketplace, at the increasing burden of others.

LOLz

[velik_m]

It's a false idea that countries will do a tit-for-tat, and even if so, what is the worse case situation?

World war 3?