Well the symbolic "Plan B" dies in conference

[B-Man]

obama won the election and repeatedly stated his stance (in absolute juxtaposition to mitt's plans) on increasing taxes on those making over $250k. he has a mandate.

 

Sorry, no revisionism please. Mr Obama also promised spending cuts

 

Obama: We Need a Balanced Approach

 

The way President Obama makes it sound in an op-ed for USA Today, it would seem that everyone is on the same page about the need to include some new taxes to raise the debt ceiling.

{Snip}

“I'm willing to cut historic amounts of spending in order to reduce our long-term deficits,” he writes. “But the American people deserve the truth from their leaders.

.

[birdog1960]

He did win the election. But let's be real here, the election wasn't about the opposing visions, polls even the one's I thought were skewed consistently showed that people preferred Mitt Romney on the Economy over Obama. The election was about how Mitt Romney didn't care about the poor (some self-inflicted wounds, but mostly hundreds of millions of dollars worth of personal attack ads), how he evaded taxes, how he shuttered factories, his stance on immigration and the perceived view that the R party is anti woman. The only real mandate of this past election is immigration reform. Other than that, there is no mandate.

you don't say: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83429.html. 60%, roughly the same percentage that voted for him.

[Magox]

The concept of raising taxes on the rich has always been a popular concept. What's funny to me is that while the Election was going, the only thing that left-leaning folks could talk about was "Mitt Romney doesn't care about the poor", "Mitt Romney is heartless and is a vulture capitalist", "Mitt Romney evades taxes", "Mitt Romney doesn't stand up to the extremist voices of the R Party".

 

That's all they talked about, now that the election is over, they believe that Obama has a mandate on his economic policies. Nice

Edited December 24, 2012 by Magox

[birdog1960]

"Mitt Romney is heartless and is a vulture capitalist", "Mitt Romney evades taxes", "Mitt Romney doesn't stand up to the extremist voices of the R Party".

not that it will ever matter, but out of curiosity, which of these do you disagree with? i could partly concede the first. the rest; not so much.

[Magox]

All of them. To go back to the topic of the nearly impossible task Boehner had, earlier in the year, Pelosi backed taxing millionaires.

 

 

House Democratic Whip Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said his own leader, Nancy Pelosi, engaged in a "political ploy" earlier this year when she endorsed raising tax rates on those making more than $1 million.

Hoyer was asked about it because House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is now backing the same idea as a fallback "Plan B" to resolve the fiscal cliff: Allowing lower Bush-era tax rates expire for income above the million-dollar threshold. The proposals amounted to a ploy in both cases, Hoyer told reporters Tuesday.

“I don’t think it works, the math doesn’t work,” Hoyer said. “It’s a political ploy to give his members an opportunity to respond to the public that thinks all the Republicans is doing is protecting the wealthy.”

 

Hoyer said Democrats are being encouraged to vote against Boehner's plan.

 

“The leader and I agree we’re not for this and we hope it does not garner the votes to pass,” Hoyer said.

 

When it was pointed out that Pelosi, the House minority leader, suggested the same thing during the campaign but is now against it, Hoyer responded that everyone was using the top-level increase to play politics.

 

“Very frankly, I think Leader Pelosi, floated that again, as a political ploy,” Hoyer said. “I think if you ask her it was a political ploy. Not because she believed that was the level at which, but she wanted to show that Republicans wouldn’t even vote for a million. It was just observed that a lot of Republicans probably won’t vote for Boehner’s suggestion at a million.”

 

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/12/hoyer-pelosi-engaged-in-political-ploy-152289.html

 

Then earlier in the year, Shumer backed a millionaire's tax, remember, the Buffett Rule.

 

The fact that Boehner accepted raising rates is a huge compromise. The original deal had 800B in tax increases, his new proposal had 1.2 Trillion. Very unpopular bill with R's. So rather than trying to make this work, Pelosi who earlier backed this plan, whipped up the votes so that it wouldn't go through. R's could of had have more than half of their caucus support this unpopular bill, but there was no support from any D's. If the D's would of supported it, the president would of basically had the Buffett rule pass, which is something that D's advocated.

 

As I said, they keep moving the goal posts.

[3rdnlng]

not that it will ever matter, but out of curiosity, which of these do you disagree with? i could partly concede the first. the rest; not so much.

 

 

Didn't he also kill a woman and terrorize a poor puppy by making him ride on the roof of his car?

[birdog1960]

All of them. To go back to the topic of the nearly impossible task Boehner had, earlier in the year, Pelosi backed taxing millionaires.

 

 

 

http://www.politico....loy-152289.html

 

Then earlier in the year, Shumer backed a millionaire's tax, remember, the Buffett Rule.

 

The fact that Boehner accepted raising rates is a huge compromise. The original deal had 800B in tax increases, his new proposal had 1.2 Trillion. Very unpopular bill with R's. So rather than trying to make this work, Pelosi who earlier backed this plan, whipped up the votes so that it wouldn't go through. R's could of had have more than half of their caucus support this unpopular bill, but there was no support from any D's. If the D's would of supported it, the president would of basically had the Buffett rule pass, which is something that D's advocated.

 

As I said, they keep moving the goal posts.

wrapping presents while arguing politics and listening to good music. great way to spend Christmas eve before really celebrating at church. and i really like your quote at the bottom of your page. couple of posters come immediately to mind.

 

the goal posts moved because of the election (which wasn't even close). progressives need the right to acknowledge this and they haven't sufficiently done that. unfortunately, i doubt they will.

[3rdnlng]

http://www.weeklysta...lan_691133.html

 

 

I find it hard that the majority voted for this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Spending will increase 55 percent over the next decade, if President Barack Obama's budget plan goes into effect. The finding comes from the Republican-side of the Senate Budget Committee, which notes that Obama's "Proposal Would Spend $880 Billion Over Already Projected Increases."

Here's a chart, detailing how Obama's plan would bring spending from $3.62 trillion in 2013 to $5.63 trillion in 2022:

"The President's last fiscal cliff offer once again increased spending rather than reducing it," writes the minority-side of the Senate Budget Committee. "His plan does claim $800 billion in spending reductions over ten years, but these claims are more than offset by new spending increases: increasing spending above BCA limits ($1,200 billion); paying for the doc fix ($400 billion); new transportation stimulus spending ($50 billion), and; a one-year extension of unemployment insurance ($30 billion). After subtracting the president’s savings from his spending increases, over the next 10 years the President’s proposal actually spends $880 billion more - $44.368 trillion versus $43.488 trillion - than currently projected spending levels. In the next two years alone, the President’s plan would spend $255 billion over current projected spending levels ($156 billion higher in FY13 and $99 billion higher in FY14). Overall, spending would increase 55% under the President’s plan, from $3.6 trillion in FY13 to $ 5.6 trillion in FY22."

 

 

 

 

 

 

• 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  

Edited December 24, 2012 by 3rdnlng

[Adam]

 

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/274009-reid-rules-out-senate-vote-on-boehners-plan-b

 

 

So, what's the purpose? Dems are committed to going over the fiscal cliff so they can blame the Repubs. Boehner's plan was actually proposed by Nancy Pelosi some time back.

The fiscal cliff is an invented catastrophe. A diversion to keep our eyes off the real issue that congress and the White House is hitting us with- the National Defense Authorization Act. Soon, they will be able to watch us and make us disappear at will.

[3rdnlng]

 

The fiscal cliff is an invented catastrophe. A diversion to keep our eyes off the real issue that congress and the White House is hitting us with- the National Defense Authorization Act. Soon, they will be able to watch us and make us disappear at will.

 

We are already in deep trouble with our fiscal house. As I see it, there is only one way to get us out of this mess and it has to do with vastly beefing up our manufacturing base. There is only one way to do that and it is with cheap energy. Obama is against that. Obama is the problem, not the solution.

[Adam]

 

 

We are already in deep trouble with our fiscal house. As I see it, there is only one way to get us out of this mess and it has to do with vastly beefing up our manufacturing base. There is only one way to do that and it is with cheap energy. Obama is against that. Obama is the problem, not the solution.

Very right about manufacturing. I see President Obama as a continuation of President Bush. Both spend like there is no tomorrow, President Bush put in the Patriot Act and President Obama is just about ready to sign off on the NDAA. Maybe the apocalypse happened and we just don't know it.

[3rdnlng]

 

Very right about manufacturing. I see President Obama as a continuation of President Bush. Both spend like there is no tomorrow, President Bush put in the Patriot Act and President Obama is just about ready to sign off on the NDAA. Maybe the apocalypse happened and we just don't know it.

 

Obama's deficits (4 years worth) have been triple Bush's worst year. Bush had a completely different energy policy. Obama makes his decisions based on politics. Bush made his policies in spite of politics.

[Adam]

 

 

Obama's deficits (4 years worth) have been triple Bush's worst year. Bush had a completely different energy policy. Obama makes his decisions based on politics. Bush made his policies in spite of politics.

No doubt, there are some differences. I won't dispute that. It is the similarities that worry me, more than the differences. The conspiracy theorists I once laughed at don't seem so funny anymore.........

[Doc]

obama won the election and repeatedly stated his stance (in absolute juxtaposition to mitt's plans) on increasing taxes on those making over $250k. he has a mandate.

LOL at "a mandate." It was a political trick. A way to whip-up the simple folks to go out and vote for him again (seeing as how the $80B at best a year in revenues wouldn't do a damned thing for the country, and likely make things worse). So the staunch R's are blocking any compromise where taxes are raised on a small percentage of people, leaving Barry to face the country and tell them that he couldn't get it done, while Blaming the R's who enough people voted for to keep them in control of the House for another 2 years at least. How long do you think blaming the R's is going to carry him now?

[3rdnlng]

Doc, in many years of management one of my "keys" to whether I was doing the right thing was realizing who was my adversary. In other words, did I have the backing of the productive people while pissing off the non-productive? Obama is the hero to the non-productive and that tells me all I need to know.

[Magox]

The fiscal cliff is an invented catastrophe.

Oh yeah? Please explain.

[B-Man]

Change ?

 

 

Democrats Now Pushing For Tax Cuts They Once Opposed.

 

 

.

[Adam]

 

Oh yeah? Please explain.

We have too big an economy for it to move to quickly in one direction or another. It would take a lot more than what is set to happen on January 1, 2013, to be so catastrophic. It is merely at attempt by our wonderful government to divert our attention from other things.

[Alaska Darin]

it's money already spent. the true cost of the wars. i say that's relevant especially since we're likely to go over the fiscal cliff over several 100 billion dollars which is dwarfed by the 2 trillion or so already spent on the wars which bought us what exactly?

 

my point on the uninsured is the obscenity of our national priorities not that we should have borrowed money for that in a vacuum....

That's right. The neocon's stupid wars and defense spending cost A LOT. And so do the stupid liberal social programs and give aways that have played at least an equal part in bankrupting the country. But you'll ignore that because your partisanship is convenient to YOU.