TEA party republicans are crazy mouth breathing mongoloid retards

[vy65]

http://news.yahoo.com/anti-tax-conservatives-no-tax-increase-deal-135031595--finance.html

[vy65]

Seriously, how fucking retarded can one swath of the public be.

There's absolutely zero principled reason for going over the cliff. "Fuck it," which a lot of them seem to be saying doesn't cut it. I'm pretty fiscally conversative and will get hit hardest by tax hikes, but do these inbred fucking assholes not realize they're pointing the pistol at their head and saying the bullet won't really hurt? Boutons, where you at homeboy?

[Wild Cobra]

What's wrong with a "No Tax Deal?"

You cannot tax yourself out of a recession.

[vy65]

What's wrong with a "No Tax Deal?"

You cannot tax yourself out of a recession.

Ladies and gentleman, I give you exhibit A.

[vy65]

And that cheerleader is kinda busted too ...

[exstatic]

Tea Party IS dumb. More people's taxes go up if we go over the cliff than if they do a deal. I think the Fiscal Cliff will end up being the KT boundary of Tea Party history.

[Wild Cobra]

I think just like last year, they will pass a bill that will not increase the tax rates, after the beginning of the year. The democrats will cave. If they don't, at least it's equal suffrage and not class warfare.

[LnGrrrR]

I think just like last year, they will pass a bill that will not increase the tax rates, after the beginning of the year. The democrats will cave. If they don't, at least it's equal suffrage and not class warfare.

They won't have to pass a bill that will not increase tax rates after the beginning of next year, because tax rates will go up automatically. The Republicans will get blamed for raising taxes on everyone. And :lol at "equal suffrage"... first off, you mean suffering, and second of all, it's not going to be equal.

For everyone that complains about people who pay no taxes, I have a simple question... would you rather make 30K a year and not pay taxes, or make $1M and pay taxes?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I'd rather be a welfare citizen. Living in the projects and relying on food stamps is such a fun lifestyle it makes me wonder why the people who bitch about welfare recipients never quit their job and become one.

[Wild Cobra]

They won't have to pass a bill that will not increase tax rates after the beginning of next year, because tax rates will go up automatically. The Republicans will get blamed for raising taxes on everyone. And :lol at "equal suffrage"... first off, you mean suffering, and second of all, it's not going to be equal.
At the beginning of this year is when they reauthorized the 4.2% on SS insurance. I'm not certain, but I believe the tax rates would have gone back to 15/28/31/36/39.6% as well until,the legislation passed in mid January.

Yes, the media will blame the republicans, like always. However, it's the democrats not agreeing to any specific spending cuts, and spending suts is what we need.

Tell me. Is the income tax revenue still about 18% of GNP? This is a historical trend, averaging 18.3% Government need to get spending down below 18.3%, else we are fucked any way.

For everyone that complains about people who pay no taxes, I have a simple question... would you rather make 30K a year and not pay taxes, or make $1M and pay taxes?
That is a question that should never be considered. Even if it's a very small amount, everyone should have skin in the game.

[LnGrrrR]

At the beginning of this year is when they reauthorized the 4.2% on SS insurance. I'm not certain, but I believe the tax rates would have gone back to 15/28/31/36/39.6% as well until,the legislation passed in mid January.

Yes, the media will blame the republicans, like always. However, it's the democrats not agreeing to any specific spending cuts, and spending suts is what we need.

Tell me. Is the income tax revenue still about 18% of GNP? This is a historical trend, averaging 18.3% Government need to get spending down below 18.3%, else we are fucked any way.

That is a question that should never be considered. Even if it's a very small amount, everyone should have skin in the game.

Why? If I'm paying $1000 in taxes instead of 0, do you really think I'll favor Republican policies if the government is still giving me food stamps/welfare/etc etc.

[boutons_deux]

The lying, fraudulent Kock-sucking tea baggers just doin what their financiers in the 1% want them to do.

[Jacob1983]

Fair tax?

[DMX7]

Ladies and gentleman, I give you exhibit A.

lol, no kidding. we're not in a recession, but I guess we probably will be if the Tea Party idiots have their way.

[spursncowboys]

Seriously, how fucking retarded can one swath of the public be.

There's absolutely zero principled reason for going over the cliff. "Fuck it," which a lot of them seem to be saying doesn't cut it. I'm pretty fiscally conversative and will get hit hardest by tax hikes, but do these inbred fucking assholes not realize they're pointing the pistol at their head and saying the bullet won't really hurt? Boutons, where you at homeboy?
The tax increase the Dems want would fund the fed govt for eight days. Then what? I haven't heard the Senate come up with anything or the President on how much spending he'll cut (besides his fav to cut-defense). 4:1 on spending cuts to tax increases, and the Repubs will def agree.

[Wild Cobra]

Why? If I'm paying $1000 in taxes instead of 0, do you really think I'll favor Republican policies if the government is still giving me food stamps/welfare/etc etc.
That's not what I said, is it?

Right now, we have almost half the population putting people in office that will redistribute other people's money to them. If they have skin in the game, then maybe they will start thinking about if their taxes will go up or not, but who they vote for.

[Wild Cobra]

Fair tax?
The only thing I don't like about the Fair tax is the prebate. I can accept that as a compromise to change to it though.

[Wild Cobra]

lol, no kidding. we're not in a recession, but I guess we probably will be if the Tea Party idiots have their way.
Maybe not technocally, but we are still in the bottom of the dip. We haven't crawled out of it yet because we have fewer people pulling the cart than it takes to pull everyone out that is in it.

[LnGrrrR]

That's not what I said, is it?

Right now, we have almost half the population putting people in office that will redistribute other people's money to them. If they have skin in the game, then maybe they will start thinking about if their taxes will go up or not, but who they vote for.

I'm just wondering how much skin you think would get them to think twice about raising taxes. Also, IIRC, some of that half include retired folks. I don't think taxing them extra will do much, except maybe get them to work past retirement age.

[Wild Cobra]

Retirement income is already taxed differently.

[scott]

The tax increase the Dems want would fund the fed govt for eight days. Then what? I haven't heard the Senate come up with anything or the President on how much spending he'll cut (besides his fav to cut-defense). 4:1 on spending cuts to tax increases, and the Repubs will def agree.

And the dreaded fiscal cliff cuts, which even Republicans think are too drastic, will fund the Government for about 11.5 days. Of course, you don't hear people talking about that... because putting things in terms of days of Government funding is really fucking stupid and no actual professional would ever do it.

[DMX7]

4:1 on spending cuts to tax increases, and the Repubs will def agree.
He won the election. He shouldn't have to agree to 4:1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases.

[spursncowboys]

And the dreaded fiscal cliff cuts, which even Republicans think are too drastic, will fund the Government for about 11.5 days. Of course, you don't hear people talking about that... because putting things in terms of days of Government funding is really fucking stupid and no actual professional would ever do it.
It's not stupid. Thinking business as usual when spending more than they bring in is stupid. Or that there is no way to not get to that is stupid as well.

[boutons_deux]

Nor should Barry be forced by the Repugs to list ALL the cuts, while the bad-faith, Repug chickenshits refuse to list any cuts.

[boutons_deux]

"spending more than they bring in is stupid"

The Repug/VRWC created the deficit, which was quite small when dubya took office, with their tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, with 2 unfunded, botched, bogus wars, unfunded Medicare Part D and Medicare Advantage, so the Repugs/VRWC can fix the deficit.

[spursncowboys]

He won the election. He shouldn't have to agree to 4:1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases.
The election has nothing to do with:
1. The way our federal government was set up to give the minority group power, or to give checks and balances. His "plan" (whatever it is) needs to make it through Senate and House! Just like the House needs to make it through the Senate and signed by Pres.
2. The Government having to fund itself responsibly. If they want to raise taxes and not only not cut spending, but increase it-theirs no point to raise taxes. Except if it was a political tool to get him elected by making people feel like the 'evil rich aren't paying their fair share'.
3. Having four years prior to this without coming up with anything. Even when he has super majority in both chambers. He chose to push it down the road to this moment. Sure a politicians first job is to get reelected but he still needs to stop playing 'poor sport'. He has as much political capital to spend as Bush did in 04. America just didn't like either second option in both election.

This cuppled with him going after guns will spend up all his political capital that he thinks he has.

[spursncowboys]

Biden should have, from day one been renegotiating. Obama has no business wasting everyone's time.

[boutons_deux]

"Even when he has super majority in both chambers."

You Lie. Barry never had a reliable 60 in the Senate, with Lieberman, Ben "Horse's Ass" Nelson, etc as DINOs.


"federal government was set up to give the minority group power"

The Constitution says 51 wins a Senate vote, but the Senate voted to constipate itself by requiring 60, plus the perverse "silent, anonymous hold" bullshit, those and other giving the minority (even a single Senator) the power of obstructionist NO.

[DMX7]

You Lie. Barry never had a reliable 60 in the Senate, with Lieberman, Ben "Horse's Ass" Nelson, etc as DINOs.


Yes, that someone would even cite that just reveals how disingenuous he/she is.

[boutons_deux]

FreedomWorks Feud: War Inside Tea Party Group Gets Nastier

When the news broke in early December that former GOP Rep. Dick Armey had abruptly resigned as chairman of FreedomWorks, a powerhouse of the conservative movement and an instrumental force within the tea party, Armey maintained that the nasty split was due to differences he had with the top management of FreedomWorks about the group's operations and future.

Immediately, media reports disclosed that Armey had been concerned that Matt Kibbe, the group's president, had used FreedomWorks resources to promote a book he had written (which was released in June) and that Armey himself had received an $8 million payout from a FreedomWorks board member to ease his departure.

But internal documents obtained by Mother Jones show that the bitter war inside FreedomWorks has also resulted in allegations of staff wrongdoing (prompting an investigation by lawyers) and counter-allegations that Armey and his allies tried to turn FreedomWorks into a partisan outfit backing establishment Republicans over tea party insurgents.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/dick-armey-freedomworks-hostile-takeover-memo (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/dick-armey-freedomworks-hostile-takeover-memo)

[scott]

It's not stupid. Thinking business as usual when spending more than they bring in is stupid. Or that there is no way to not get to that is stupid as well.

Neither of those things have anything to do with putting things in terms of days it would fund the Federal Government.

To wit, I will use your original statement, and change the variables.

"If we cut spending by the entire amount of the deficit, it would only fund the Federal Government for 87 days. Then what?"

It is a stupid talking point perpetrated by stupid people. Don't be one of them.

[Trainwreck2100]

I love the thought process that gives us "Don't raise taxes but let's do nothing so taxes get raised"

[spursncowboys]

Neither of those things have anything to do with putting things in terms of days it would fund the Federal Government.

To wit, I will use your original statement, and change the variables.

"If we cut spending by the entire amount of the deficit, it would only fund the Federal Government for 87 days. Then what?"

It is a stupid talking point perpetrated by stupid people. Don't be one of them. Where are you getting your data? I don't understand what you don't understand about not having annual deficits.
I don't think it is a stupid point. Not everyone sits around spending hours on current events. Or theorizing ideas and playing devil's advocate with a clear edge towards one view. It's a pretty great point that the most time spent to pay our bills won't even cover 10%.

[Wild Cobra]

He won the election. He shouldn't have to agree to 4:1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases.
Did you vote for a dictator?

[scott]

Where are you getting your data?

Publicly available sources on the projection for 2013 Federal Outlays and the resulting deficit.


I don't understand what you don't understand about not having annual deficits.

What does having, or not having, federal deficits have to do with putting revenues or expenditures in terms of a stupid unit of measure?


I don't think it is a stupid point. Not everyone sits around spending hours on current events.

Hence why we don't base policy around their uninformed opinions.



Or theorizing ideas and playing devil's advocate with a clear edge towards one view. It's a pretty great point that the most time spent to pay our bills won't even cover 10%.

What does this have to do with putting revenues or expenditures in terms of a stupid unit of measure?

Here is another question, what does putting revenues or expenditures in terms of your unit of measure intend to illustrate?

[scott]

I mean, if we fundamentally changed to the tax code to a flat 25% of ALL INCOME, it would only fund the government for 362 days. Then what?

[baseline bum]

Can someone tell me how many bills the Bush tax cuts will cost in terms of solar masses? What is it, about a gram per dollar?

[ElNono]

Can someone tell me how many bills the Bush tax cuts will cost in terms of solar masses? What is it, about a gram per dollar?

55 libraries of Congress...

[LnGrrrR]

Did you vote for a dictator?

Is having the power of veto not in the Constitution?

[spursncowboys]

I mean, if we fundamentally changed to the tax code to a flat 25% of ALL INCOME, it would only fund the government for 362 days. Then what?
Cute... How about if I reword it: Obama's tax increase wouldn't even offset his healthcare cost increases.

[spursncowboys]

Not that it was dishonest
Not that it was misleading

Because stupid people say it.

[Wild Cobra]

Is having the power of veto not in the Constitution?
Sure he can veto it. I was referring to "he shouldn't have to." It seemed to me by DMX7's post that he thought Obama should get what ever he want.

[Winehole23]

so then, the president using the constitutionally enumerated veto power, if you disagree with it, amounts to dictatorship . . .

[Winehole23]

sounds like, you don't know what a constitution is . . .

[Wild Cobra]

so then, the president using the constitutionally enumerated veto power, if you disagree with it, amounts to dictatorship . . .
That was never my message. Again, I read DMX7's words as effectively meaning that Obama should get what ever he wants since he won the election.

[Winehole23]

it's understandable you're upset Obama and his party won the election and therefore stand with a bigger mandate from the public. GOP voted for the sequester in 2011 in hopes they would wax Obama in 2012. It didn't happen, therefore, Obama occupies the catbird seat . . .

[Winehole23]

And is as free as any President to use the veto, or to talk about using it. Republicans sure ain't shy about using the filibuster or holding up the President's nominees. You think it isn't fair if the President uses what the Constitution gave him?

[Wild Cobra]

And is as free as any President to use the veto, or to talk about using it. Republicans sure ain't shy about using the filibuster or holding up the President's nominees. You think it isn't fair if the President uses what the Constitution gave him?
I recently saw a nominee get his post with I think a 98-0 vote in the senate. You have to admit, those ones the GOP opposes are pretty biased.

I'm sorry, you don't have to admit shit. You do have your 5th amendment rights.

[Wild Cobra]

it's understandable you're upset Obama and his party won the election and therefore stand with a bigger mandate from the public. GOP voted for the sequester in 2011 in hopes they would wax Obama in 2012. It didn't happen, therefore, Obama occupies the catbird seat . . .

The limit of my being upset is that people think Obama should get his way on fiscal issues. Do you by chance remember the part in the constitution that says bills originate in the house? Well guess what. The house is fully elected every 2 years, and do you know which party has a majority? You thinking there is any type of a mandate must mean you think the democrats won the house too.

[Winehole23]

Senate and the Presidency, plus a popular majority of votes in the House. the gerrymander saved the GOP majority there . . .

[Wild Cobra]

Senate and the Presidency, plus a popular majority of votes in the House. the gerrymander saved the GOP majority there . . .
Excuses excuses...

[Winehole23]

You have to admit, those ones the GOP opposes are pretty biased.
Nope, I don't.

[Winehole23]

Obama's partly to blame for the slow pace of nominations, but his nominees haven't been particularly heinous, apart from being nominated by him.

[Wild Cobra]

Nope, I don't.
OK.

I'll honor your 5th.

Seems to me, by your attitude tonight, you are drinking one too!

[Wild Cobra]

Obama's partly to blame for the slow pace of nominations, but his nominees haven't been particularly heinous, apart from being nominated by him.
Only the ones that had wide republican dissatisfaction with.

[spursncowboys]

it's understandable you're upset Obama and his party won the election and therefore stand with a bigger mandate from the public. GOP voted for the sequester in 2011 in hopes they would wax Obama in 2012. It didn't happen, therefore, Obama occupies the catbird seat . . .
True but his "budget"(whatever it is) has to pass the House too. Unless the Senate goes another year without a budget.