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

[Misty]

Stop holding out your hand and expecting the government to pay for your stuff and then congress will be able to cut spending.

The government was not meant to be everyone's sugar daddy.

If you work for the government that's different.

But welfare unemployment social security health care are all things we can't afford.

And stop giving our money to foreign countries.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

Ah yes, we should return to the good ol' days when people supported other people by exchanging beads for pelts, borrowing your neighbor's horse and buggy to drive an injured farmer to the town doc instead of calling an ambulance.

 

[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

Which, of course, they didn't do but got their tax breaks anyway. Hello?????

the GOP hasnt taken over the house yet either


while i do hold out hope they will prove to be different this time, i will still wait till i see actual proof they want to be fiscally responsible
i wont be disappointed, because i have serious doubts they will

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

Ah yes, we should return to the good ol' days when people supported other people by exchanging beads for pelts, borrowing your neighbor's horse and buggy to drive an injured farmer to the town doc instead of calling an ambulance.

If you're capable of defending your point then you shouldn't need to turn to absurd hyperbole.

 

[MaggieMae]

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

Still ignoring recent history, I see:

Total 2008 job loss: 2.6 million - Jan. 9, 2009

The hemorrhaging of American jobs accelerated at a record pace at the end of 2008, bringing the year's total job losses to 2.6 million or the highest level in more than six decades.

A sobering U.S. Labor Department jobs report Friday showed the economy lost 524,000 jobs in December and 1.9 million in the year's final four months, after the credit crisis began in September.

The unemployment rate rose to 7.2% last month from 6.7% in November - its highest rate since January 1993.

The steep annual drop in jobs marked the highest yearly job-loss total since 1945, the year in which World War II ended.

The Democrats were responsible for all that in the span of one year? Get real, please.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

Press Releases - Press - U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee

 

[DiveCon]

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

Still ignoring recent history, I see:

Total 2008 job loss: 2.6 million - Jan. 9, 2009

The hemorrhaging of American jobs accelerated at a record pace at the end of 2008, bringing the year's total job losses to 2.6 million or the highest level in more than six decades.

A sobering U.S. Labor Department jobs report Friday showed the economy lost 524,000 jobs in December and 1.9 million in the year's final four months, after the credit crisis began in September.

The unemployment rate rose to 7.2% last month from 6.7% in November - its highest rate since January 1993.

The steep annual drop in jobs marked the highest yearly job-loss total since 1945, the year in which World War II ended.

The Democrats were responsible for all that in the span of one year? Get real, please.

funny coincidence?

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

So someone from The Foundry has a mole in the Senate Leadership's backroom? Why do I seriously doubt that? Just as you people doubt anything published by Huffington Post or the New York Times, I seriously doubt the opining of The Heritage Foundation.

 

[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.

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

Press Releases - Press - U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee

I don''t see how this addresses my comment....
income equality or inequality is equal to what you're willing or not to do to accrue some. There is no finite amount/supply of money in this context.

 

[Trajan]

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.

So someone from The Foundry has a mole in the Senate Leadership's backroom? Why do I seriously doubt that? Just as you people doubt anything published by Huffington Post or the New York Times, I seriously doubt the opining of The Heritage Foundation.

they are halfway there now as they have used this measure to pay for the 2010 budget-

to fund all the federal government not only through fiscal year (FY) 2011 but also partially into FY 2012.

 

[The T]

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.

Ah yes, we should return to the good ol' days when people supported other people by exchanging beads for pelts, borrowing your neighbor's horse and buggy to drive an injured farmer to the town doc instead of calling an ambulance.

Maggie? Just defies common sense and logic. It just does. And it is weak.

No further comment.

 

[georgephillip]

MoveOn.org commissioned Survey USA to poll over 1,000 people who contributed time or money to Obama in 2008. What the sampling revealed doesn't bode well for Obama or Democrats in general in 2012:

"The poll shows clearly that these contributors are deeply opposed (74%) to a deal with Republicans to extend the Bush-era tax breaks for those making over $250,000 a year.

"The depth of opposition to a deal is severe with former Obama contributors saying that they are less likely (57%) to support Democrats who support this deal in 2012.

"A majority of the former Obama contributors surveyed also say that the President's deal also makes them less likely (51%) to contribute to his reelection campaign in 2012.

So 57 percent of Obama contributors say they are less likely to support Congressional Dems for reelection if they back the temporary extension, meaning there could be a political cost for Dems for embracing it.

"And more than half, 51 percent, say they are less likely to shell out cash for Obama's reelection in 2012, suggesting it could damage his ability to turn out the same coalition that elected him in 2008"

Obama Supporters...

 

[Trajan]

they'll come back george that is the mid range to large contributor libs will, they have now here else to go and obama knows it. UNLESS hes challenged din a primary by a viable candidate........then it could get really dicey.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is the far left there, stud, no the mainstream of the Dem party. And what the far lefters are saying about support? Believe that at your own political peril. They certainly will not vote for the GOP that will persecute them if the take the Senate and the Presidency along with the House.

Does spin, bubba, but you fell down. Edit: listen to Trajan; on this he has it correctly drawn. However, Trajan, I don't see a viable alternative in the Dems to BHO. The only possibility of success would be in HRC. However, she said flatly SOS is her last office and position, and she is hiding an illness that will force here to retire before not after.

 

[Trajan]

That is the far left there, stud, no the mainstream of the Dem party. And what the far lefters are saying about support? Believe that at your own political peril. They certainly will not vote for the GOP that will persecute them if the take the Senate and the Presidency along with the House.

Does spin, bubba, but you fell down.

are you addressing me?

 

[thereisnospoon]

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!

Why is it none of you libs are concerned how a tax INCREASE will be paid for?
Tax cuts do not "get paid for".. The federal government has the duty to not spend more than it receives in revenues.
BTW, historically every tax reduction has resulted in economic growth and MORE revenue for government.
The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform....
Here's one example.
BTW there are tons of blogs and opinion articles which refute the above information (provided by the US House of Reps own website) that will place a spin and do some fancy dancing with odd ball calculations. I'm not fooled. So exclude them for your response.
Face it. You lefties do not view taxation as a means to raise revenue. You see taxation as a means to punish those who you see as having "won the lottery of life".
Your fallback position is always" they don't need it". Or "they have too much".
poppycock.

 

[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!

Why is it none of you libs are concerned how a tax INCREASE will be paid for?
Tax cuts do not "get paid for".. The federal government has the duty to not spend more than it receives in revenues.
BTW, historically every tax reduction has resulted in economic growth and MORE revenue for government.
The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform....
Here's one example.
BTW there are tons of blogs and opinion articles which refute the above information (provided by the US House of Reps own website) that will place a spin and do some fancy dancing with odd ball calculations. I'm not fooled. So exclude them for your response.
Face it. You lefties do not view taxation as a means to raise revenue. You see taxation as a means to punish those who you see as having "won the lottery of life".
Your fallback position is always" they don't need it". Or "they have too much".
poppycock.

And of course who are they to tell someone who legitamitely earned what they have that they don't need it? How to spend it? And upon what?

Crux? None of their business.

 

[8537]

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

Still ignoring recent history, I see:

Total 2008 job loss: 2.6 million - Jan. 9, 2009

The hemorrhaging of American jobs accelerated at a record pace at the end of 2008, bringing the year's total job losses to 2.6 million or the highest level in more than six decades.

A sobering U.S. Labor Department jobs report Friday showed the economy lost 524,000 jobs in December and 1.9 million in the year's final four months, after the credit crisis began in September.

The unemployment rate rose to 7.2% last month from 6.7% in November - its highest rate since January 1993.

The steep annual drop in jobs marked the highest yearly job-loss total since 1945, the year in which World War II ended.

The Democrats were responsible for all that in the span of one year? Get real, please.

funny coincidence?

The losses started before the Democrats took over congress.

 

[The T]

That is the far left there, stud, no the mainstream of the Dem party. And what the far lefters are saying about support? Believe that at your own political peril. They certainly will not vote for the GOP that will persecute them if the take the Senate and the Presidency along with the House.

Does spin, bubba, but you fell down.

are you addressing me?

Even Jake doesn't know.

 

[georgephillip]

they'll come back george that is the mid range to large contributor libs will, they have now here else to go and obama knows it. UNLESS hes challenged din a primary by a viable candidate........then it could get really dicey.

Alexander "Dicey" Cockburn has suggested a third party challenge for Obama from the recently deposed Wisconsin liberal, Russ Feingold.

In Cockburn's best case scenario, Ralph Nader passes the torch (temporarily) to Russ in 2012 with George Soros providing the deep pockets:

"...Last week Soros confided at a private gathering in Washington DC of a group of progressive movers and shakers known as the Democracy Alliance that Democratic donors should direct their support somewhere other than the president.

"Soros told those in attendance that he is 'used to fighting losing battles but doesn't like to lose without fighting.'"

"'We have just lost this election, we need to draw a line," he said.

"'And if this president can't do what we need, it is time to start looking somewhere else.'"

Feingold has the progressive credentials mid-range and large contributor libs could support. Particularly if Obama continues to rot from the head down.

Like a fish with no spine.