[Wildcatk23]

Lacking GOP support, Republicans yank ‘fiscal cliff’ ‘Plan B’


In a stinging setback for Republican House Speaker John Boehner, a lack of support from inside his own party for his “fiscal cliff” fall-back plan forced him late Thursday to cancel a much-trumpeted vote on the measure.

“The House did not take up the tax measure today because it did not have sufficient support from our members to pass,” Boehner said in a written statement released after an emergency meeting of House Republicans.

The measure, dubbed “Plan B,” would have let Bush-era tax cuts expire on income above $1 million annually, while extending them for everyone else. It appeared that Boehner faced a rebellion from conservatives opposed to any tax hike, while House Democrats starved the bill of their support, making passage impossible.

Boehner’s dramatic defeat cast fresh doubt on efforts to avert the “fiscal cliff” and spare Americans across-the-board income tax hikes come Jan. 1. Those increases, coupled with deep automatic spending cuts scheduled to take effect the same day, could plunge the fragile economy into a new recession. Talks between the speaker and President Barack Obama were at a stalemate, according to aides on both sides.

After the cancellation of the vote, Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor announced on Twitter the House "has concluded legislative business for the week. The House will return after the Christmas holiday when needed."

Boehner’s “Plan B” had aimed to shift any blame for going over the "fiscal cliff" to Obama and Senate Democrats led by Harry Reid. Polls show a narrow majority of Americans say they would hold the GOP responsible if a deal is not reached to avert the "cliff."

“Now it is up to the president to work with Senator Reid on legislation to avert the fiscal cliff,” the speaker said. He pointed to House passage of Republican bills that would stop all of the tax increases and replace the automatic cuts. “The Senate must now act.”

The vote had initially been scheduled for 7:30 p.m. But House Republican leaders’ vote counting showed up coming up short. Rather than suffer a defeat in a floor vote, they pulled the bill.

Earlier, the White House had pressed Boehner to stick with negotiations with Obama and threatened to veto “Plan B,” which top Senate Democrats mocked as “dead on arrival” in the upper chamber.

“Instead of taking the opportunity that was presented to them to continue to negotiate what could be a very helpful, large deal for the American people, the Republicans in the House have decided to run down an alley that has no exit while we all watch,” Obama press secretary Jay Carney told reporters.

Carney also indicated that communications, even at the staff level, were on hold.

One early sign of trouble for Boehner came in a too-narrow-for-comfort vote victory on the second part of his plan, which would have replaced the automatic cuts in defense and domestic spending–the so-called “sequester”–with a Republican alternative. That measure passed by a 215-209 margin.

Before that, lawmakers had defeated a Democratic attempt to derail the process by a 179-243 margin.

The “Plan B” push had pitted Boehner against conservative groups like the anti-tax Club for Growth and Heritage Action–which warned lawmakers the results would go on their permanent records.

But even a victory for Boehner would have been mostly symbolic.

Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid offered the “fiscal cliff” equivalent to Monty Python’s “dead parrot” sketch, dismissing "Plan B" as a “pointless political stunt,” declaring that Boehner’s efforts were “non-starters in the Senate” and insisting that “House Republicans know that the bill has no future.”

“If they don’t know it now, tell them what I said,” Reid said. “It’s time for Republicans to get serious” about negotiating with Obama. (Anyone still think the parrot is just resting? No. 2 Senate Democrat Dick Durbin bluntly declared “Plan B” to be “dead on arrival.”)

Reid also announced that the Senate would be back at work on Dec. 27. (Earlier, Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said representatives would not leave town immediately after the "Plan B" vote.)

Boehner shrugged off Reid’s comments.

“After today, Senate Democrats and the White House are going to have to act on this measure,” he told reporters. “And if Senate Democrats and the White House refuse to act, they’ll be responsible for the largest tax hike in American history.”

Boehner had declared himself “hopeful” that he and Obama can reach a broader deal and insisted he was “not convinced at all that when the bill passes the House today it will die in the Senate.”

The White House, which had already leveled a veto threat, blasted “Plan B” in a blog post as “nothing more than a dangerous diversion” that scraps funding for services like Meals on Wheels, which reaches some 1.7 million elderly people, as well as child care programs and initiatives that help homeowners prevent foreclosure.

Some analysts had noted that Obama and Boehner were just a few billion dollars apart and that “Plan B” could turn out to the be the legislative vehicle for any final compromise deal.

“We will have to be here the 27th no matter what happens,” Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer said. “If there’s no agreement we have to be here to try and hammer out something. If there is an agreement it’ll take several days to write it up–our poor staffs will have to be doing it during the holiday–and then vote on it the 27th.”

Democrats argued that Obama’s latest offer to Boehner included a sizable concession. The president said Monday that he’d accept rates going up on household income above $400,000, rather than $250,000, the number he cited throughout his reelection campaign.

Obama's new proposal also calls for raising $1.2 trillion in new tax revenues on individual income–down from $1.4 trillion in his previous proposal and $1.6 trillion in his opening gambit–coupled with about $1 trillion in spending cuts. The president’s proposal includes about $130 billion saved by adopting lower cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security, something liberal Democrats oppose.

Republicans charged that the president was relying on dodgy math by including interest that won’t have to be paid on the national debt thanks to the savings–even though Boehner has embraced that accounting maneuver in the past.

Early in the day, Boehner himself had rejected charges that “Plan B” showed that he feared he would be unable to rally enough Republicans behind a more comprehensive deal.

“Listen, the president knows that I’ve been able to keep my word on every agreement we’ve ever made,” he said.

Yahoo.com

[WideRight05]

Lacking GOP support, Republicans yank ‘fiscal cliff’ ‘Plan B’


In a stinging setback for Republican House Speaker John Boehner, a lack of support from inside his own party for his “fiscal cliff” fall-back plan forced him late Thursday to cancel a much-trumpeted vote on the measure.

“The House did not take up the tax measure today because it did not have sufficient support from our members to pass,” Boehner said in a written statement released after an emergency meeting of House Republicans.

The measure, dubbed “Plan B,” would have let Bush-era tax cuts expire on income above $1 million annually, while extending them for everyone else. It appeared that Boehner faced a rebellion from conservatives opposed to any tax hike, while House Democrats starved the bill of their support, making passage impossible.

Boehner’s dramatic defeat cast fresh doubt on efforts to avert the “fiscal cliff” and spare Americans across-the-board income tax hikes come Jan. 1. Those increases, coupled with deep automatic spending cuts scheduled to take effect the same day, could plunge the fragile economy into a new recession. Talks between the speaker and President Barack Obama were at a stalemate, according to aides on both sides.

After the cancellation of the vote, Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor announced on Twitter the House "has concluded legislative business for the week. The House will return after the Christmas holiday when needed."

Boehner’s “Plan B” had aimed to shift any blame for going over the "fiscal cliff" to Obama and Senate Democrats led by Harry Reid. Polls show a narrow majority of Americans say they would hold the GOP responsible if a deal is not reached to avert the "cliff."

“Now it is up to the president to work with Senator Reid on legislation to avert the fiscal cliff,” the speaker said. He pointed to House passage of Republican bills that would stop all of the tax increases and replace the automatic cuts. “The Senate must now act.”

The vote had initially been scheduled for 7:30 p.m. But House Republican leaders’ vote counting showed up coming up short. Rather than suffer a defeat in a floor vote, they pulled the bill.

Earlier, the White House had pressed Boehner to stick with negotiations with Obama and threatened to veto “Plan B,” which top Senate Democrats mocked as “dead on arrival” in the upper chamber.

“Instead of taking the opportunity that was presented to them to continue to negotiate what could be a very helpful, large deal for the American people, the Republicans in the House have decided to run down an alley that has no exit while we all watch,” Obama press secretary Jay Carney told reporters.

Carney also indicated that communications, even at the staff level, were on hold.

One early sign of trouble for Boehner came in a too-narrow-for-comfort vote victory on the second part of his plan, which would have replaced the automatic cuts in defense and domestic spending–the so-called “sequester”–with a Republican alternative. That measure passed by a 215-209 margin.

Before that, lawmakers had defeated a Democratic attempt to derail the process by a 179-243 margin.

The “Plan B” push had pitted Boehner against conservative groups like the anti-tax Club for Growth and Heritage Action–which warned lawmakers the results would go on their permanent records.

But even a victory for Boehner would have been mostly symbolic.

Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid offered the “fiscal cliff” equivalent to Monty Python’s “dead parrot” sketch, dismissing "Plan B" as a “pointless political stunt,” declaring that Boehner’s efforts were “non-starters in the Senate” and insisting that “House Republicans know that the bill has no future.”

“If they don’t know it now, tell them what I said,” Reid said. “It’s time for Republicans to get serious” about negotiating with Obama. (Anyone still think the parrot is just resting? No. 2 Senate Democrat Dick Durbin bluntly declared “Plan B” to be “dead on arrival.”)

Reid also announced that the Senate would be back at work on Dec. 27. (Earlier, Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said representatives would not leave town immediately after the "Plan B" vote.)

Boehner shrugged off Reid’s comments.

“After today, Senate Democrats and the White House are going to have to act on this measure,” he told reporters. “And if Senate Democrats and the White House refuse to act, they’ll be responsible for the largest tax hike in American history.”

Boehner had declared himself “hopeful” that he and Obama can reach a broader deal and insisted he was “not convinced at all that when the bill passes the House today it will die in the Senate.”

The White House, which had already leveled a veto threat, blasted “Plan B” in a blog post as “nothing more than a dangerous diversion” that scraps funding for services like Meals on Wheels, which reaches some 1.7 million elderly people, as well as child care programs and initiatives that help homeowners prevent foreclosure.

Some analysts had noted that Obama and Boehner were just a few billion dollars apart and that “Plan B” could turn out to the be the legislative vehicle for any final compromise deal.

“We will have to be here the 27th no matter what happens,” Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer said. “If there’s no agreement we have to be here to try and hammer out something. If there is an agreement it’ll take several days to write it up–our poor staffs will have to be doing it during the holiday–and then vote on it the 27th.”

Democrats argued that Obama’s latest offer to Boehner included a sizable concession. The president said Monday that he’d accept rates going up on household income above $400,000, rather than $250,000, the number he cited throughout his reelection campaign.

Obama's new proposal also calls for raising $1.2 trillion in new tax revenues on individual income–down from $1.4 trillion in his previous proposal and $1.6 trillion in his opening gambit–coupled with about $1 trillion in spending cuts. The president’s proposal includes about $130 billion saved by adopting lower cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security, something liberal Democrats oppose.

Republicans charged that the president was relying on dodgy math by including interest that won’t have to be paid on the national debt thanks to the savings–even though Boehner has embraced that accounting maneuver in the past.

Early in the day, Boehner himself had rejected charges that “Plan B” showed that he feared he would be unable to rally enough Republicans behind a more comprehensive deal.

“Listen, the president knows that I’ve been able to keep my word on every agreement we’ve ever made,” he said.

Yahoo.com

I make the mistake of reading Yahoo sometimes and saw that article this morning. As usual, it makes every attempt to paint Boehner as the bad guy and Obama as a saint. The buck has to stop somewhere, and as these problems continue to happen the media will eventually run out of republicans to blame, leaving them no choice but to expose the indigent leadership a tthe top.

The fact that this debate is going on this close to tax season shows the lack of competence by Obama and this administration. This should have been settled a long time ago, and now because of the large delay we will see a screwed up tax system for this year that is put together very randomly. It's difficult to tell clients what to do right now because nothing is known.

Wildcat, despite our differences on views, you do seem like a smart guy and I would hope you don't actually trust what you just posted. I preach it over and over, but C-SPAN is the way to go for politics. Nobody truly knows 100% of what is going on, but watching everything happen live makes quite a difference in one's understanding not just of the situations, but of the people we have in office. One thing is that for sure is that we have some major flaws in our leadership.

[TheRealThing]

Lacking GOP support, Republicans yank ‘fiscal cliff’ ‘Plan B’


In a stinging setback for Republican House Speaker John Boehner, a lack of support from inside his own party for his “fiscal cliff” fall-back plan forced him late Thursday to cancel a much-trumpeted vote on the measure.

“The House did not take up the tax measure today because it did not have sufficient support from our members to pass,” Boehner said in a written statement released after an emergency meeting of House Republicans.

The measure, dubbed “Plan B,” would have let Bush-era tax cuts expire on income above $1 million annually, while extending them for everyone else. It appeared that Boehner faced a rebellion from conservatives opposed to any tax hike, while House Democrats starved the bill of their support, making passage impossible.
Boehner’s dramatic defeat cast fresh doubt on efforts to avert the “fiscal cliff” and spare Americans across-the-board income tax hikes come Jan. 1. Those increases, coupled with deep automatic spending cuts scheduled to take effect the same day, could plunge the fragile economy into a new recession. Talks between the speaker and President Barack Obama were at a stalemate, according to aides on both sides.

After the cancellation of the vote, Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor announced on Twitter the House "has concluded legislative business for the week. The House will return after the Christmas holiday when needed."

Boehner’s “Plan B” had aimed to shift any blame for going over the "fiscal cliff" to Obama and Senate Democrats led by Harry Reid. Polls show a narrow majority of Americans say they would hold the GOP responsible if a deal is not reached to avert the "cliff."

“Now it is up to the president to work with Senator Reid on legislation to avert the fiscal cliff,” the speaker said. He pointed to House passage of Republican bills that would stop all of the tax increases and replace the automatic cuts. “The Senate must now act.”

The vote had initially been scheduled for 7:30 p.m. But House Republican leaders’ vote counting showed up coming up short. Rather than suffer a defeat in a floor vote, they pulled the bill.

Earlier, the White House had pressed Boehner to stick with negotiations with Obama and threatened to veto “Plan B,” which top Senate Democrats mocked as “dead on arrival” in the upper chamber.

“Instead of taking the opportunity that was presented to them to continue to negotiate what could be a very helpful, large deal for the American people, the Republicans in the House have decided to run down an alley that has no exit while we all watch,” Obama press secretary Jay Carney told reporters.

Carney also indicated that communications, even at the staff level, were on hold.

One early sign of trouble for Boehner came in a too-narrow-for-comfort vote victory on the second part of his plan, which would have replaced the automatic cuts in defense and domestic spending–the so-called “sequester”–with a Republican alternative. That measure passed by a 215-209 margin.

Before that, lawmakers had defeated a Democratic attempt to derail the process by a 179-243 margin.

The “Plan B” push had pitted Boehner against conservative groups like the anti-tax Club for Growth and Heritage Action–which warned lawmakers the results would go on their permanent records.

But even a victory for Boehner would have been mostly symbolic.

Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid offered the “fiscal cliff” equivalent to Monty Python’s “dead parrot” sketch, dismissing "Plan B" as a “pointless political stunt,” declaring that Boehner’s efforts were “non-starters in the Senate” and insisting that “House Republicans know that the bill has no future.”

“If they don’t know it now, tell them what I said,” Reid said. “It’s time for Republicans to get serious” about negotiating with Obama. (Anyone still think the parrot is just resting? No. 2 Senate Democrat Dick Durbin bluntly declared “Plan B” to be “dead on arrival.”

Reid also announced that the Senate would be back at work on Dec. 27. (Earlier, Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said representatives would not leave town immediately after the "Plan B" vote.)

Boehner shrugged off Reid’s comments.

“After today, Senate Democrats and the White House are going to have to act on this measure,” he told reporters. “And if Senate Democrats and the White House refuse to act, they’ll be responsible for the largest tax hike in American history.”

Boehner had declared himself “hopeful” that he and Obama can reach a broader deal and insisted he was “not convinced at all that when the bill passes the House today it will die in the Senate.”

The White House, which had already leveled a veto threat, blasted “Plan B” in a blog post as “nothing more than a dangerous diversion” that scraps funding for services like Meals on Wheels, which reaches some 1.7 million elderly people, as well as child care programs and initiatives that help homeowners prevent foreclosure.

Some analysts had noted that Obama and Boehner were just a few billion dollars apart and that “Plan B” could turn out to the be the legislative vehicle for any final compromise deal.

“We will have to be here the 27th no matter what happens,” Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer said. “If there’s no agreement we have to be here to try and hammer out something. If there is an agreement it’ll take several days to write it up–our poor staffs will have to be doing it during the holiday–and then vote on it the 27th.”

Democrats argued that Obama’s latest offer to Boehner included a sizable concession. The president said Monday that he’d accept rates going up on household income above $400,000, rather than $250,000, the number he cited throughout his reelection campaign.

Obama's new proposal also calls for raising $1.2 trillion in new tax revenues on individual income–down from $1.4 trillion in his previous proposal and $1.6 trillion in his opening gambit–coupled with about $1 trillion in spending cuts. The president’s proposal includes about $130 billion saved by adopting lower cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security, something liberal Democrats oppose.

Republicans charged that the president was relying on dodgy math by including interest that won’t have to be paid on the national debt thanks to the savings–even though Boehner has embraced that accounting maneuver in the past.

Early in the day, Boehner himself had rejected charges that “Plan B” showed that he feared he would be unable to rally enough Republicans behind a more comprehensive deal.

“Listen, the president knows that I’ve been able to keep my word on every agreement we’ve ever made,” he said.

Yahoo.com

FIRST BOLD---
We already have "passed legislation", bills if you will, that the House of Representatives has sent up to Senate in the recent past which, are just laying around collecting dust because Harry Reid won't bring them up on the floor. Many senate democrats have taken to the mic to publicly announce that anything else coming up out of the House, and specifically 'Plan B', was dead on arrival anyway. Since the whole thing was more or less an attempt by Boehner to force the dems to take rightful ownership for forcing us over the fiscal cliff, and purportedly had no real chance of ratification by the Senate or to get by Obama's veto pen. Some of the repbulicans chose to take a position of dissent out of allegiance to their constituency, not wanting to go on record in support of raising tax rates.

Don't forget, not raising tax rates is what most Americans want. Only the takers and their democrat husbandmen want to continue an ever escalating increase in tax rates so that they may get and give more free stuff. All of which, amounts to a cradle to grave, care-free ride, on the backs of taxpayers for the slugs who think they are either too good, or too smart, to work.


SECOND BOLD---
Backing down from an INCREASE in PROPOSED spending, is not a spending cut. Here is our problem; let's say my household spending, amounts to $10,000 dollars a month but, I only make $6,000. I have connections at the bank so to date, I have managed to convince them to loan me the $4,000 dollar shortfall for each month but, they're getting a little concerned with the amount of money I owe. I say to them, "don't worry, I am going to make spending cuts." Instead of buying a new $90 thousand dollar Ferrari, I have decided to buy a $55 thousand dollar extended cab, 4wd pickup. Therefore I am proposing $35 thousand dollars of spending cuts. Well guess what, you're still talking about an extravagant increase in spending over present levels. That kind of smoke and mirror rationale would get me laughed out of the bank in question, and rightfully so. Ladies and gentlemen, that is the spending model of your president and his band of mental midgets.

And one more thing. Now that Mitt Romney is treading the backwaters of history, thanks to the dems smear machine, the laser is now on the back of John Boehner. It's nothing short of an attempt by the liberals to eliminate any form of opposition between them and the fulfillment of John Lennon's vision.

"Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...


Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...


You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one"


Achievement of the above is the goal and driving force of one time glassy eyed, college pot heads, who have now found themselves in control of your present federal govenment. Is it just me or are these the words of a known pot headed, rock star? Hardly comparable to the thoughts and ideals of Jefferson, Franklin or Washington. Let me know if you can find any Al Qaeda, Russians, North Koreans or Chinese, who will get on board with this blather, LOL.

[Wildcatk23]

I just found it interesting that his proposal couldnt even pass within his own party.

[vector]

I just found it interesting that his proposal couldnt even pass within his own party.

you would be lucky if you got that party to pass gas they would have to ask Grover Norquist

[TheRealThing]

you would be lucky if you got that party to pass gas they would have to ask Grover Norquist

Right, thanks to the dems we have miracles of legislation such as Dodd-Frank and ObamaCare. The greatest one-two punch since Germany and Japan linked up in World War II. Masters of smoke and mirrors and the bait and switch, the dems have managed yet again to divert attention from the real issue, this time by turning the argument from raising tax rates, to balancing the budget. How many folks of repute must needs to step up and direct our collective attention to the fact that Obama's "tax the rich" strategy will only net us enough money to fund the federal government for 8 days? What the heck is that going to do for us when it comes to balancing the budget? The republicans really do need to get on board with the president's program boy. :please:

Obama started his administration blasting the Bush era tax cuts as the bane of the American economy. Durbin, Schumer, Pelosi and Reid were all right there with him, standing shoulder to shouder, the quintessential liberal phalanx of solidarity. All declaring the Bush era tax cuts would be the death of us. These days the opinions of Obama et-al have 'evolved', in similar fashion to their views on gay marriage, I guess. Now all of a sudden, the Bush era tax cuts are the last thing standing between the destruction of the middle class, and their continued prosperity (as prosperity is now loosely defined and adjusted by social justice advocates and present day liberal Keynesian ideologues).

No matter how many times republicans and those who couldn't possibly be tagged as just another partisan puppet, immigrants like Mark Steyn, point out how ridiculous the Obama led argument known as "the rich should pay their fair share" really is, folks like vector will still drink from the cup of monkey vomit offered up by by the priests of the party of loons. Common sense is a thing of the past for the democrat faithful. That's why, the fact they are being used as pawns by liberals, escapes them. Liberals must remain in positions of power to effect the world transformation of their vision. Therefore they have cultivated a legion of voter-serfs, if you will, who are quite content to run the country in the ground, in pursuit if their daily dalliances. In return, the dems insure they are properly housed, have an Obamaphone in their pocket, are well fed and have unfettered access to free abortion clinics.

The republicans need to stick by their guns. The bottom line is this, if something good happens the dems will say they did it, if something bad happens they will say the republicans (Bush) did it. Their whole economic argument, the centerpiece of the so-called Obama economic policy, are the BUSH ERA TAX CUTS, anybody else find that to be a bit ironic? Obama's big idea, is to continue the Bush tax cuts he once decried as our biggest fiscal burden? nicker:

[vector]

Right, thanks to the dems we have miracles of legislation such as Dodd-Frank and ObamaCare. The greatest one-two punch since Germany and Japan linked up in World War II. Masters of smoke and mirrors and the bait and switch, the dems have managed yet again to divert attention from the real issue, this time by turning the argument from raising tax rates, to balancing the budget. How many folks of repute must needs to step up and direct our collective attention to the fact that Obama's "tax the rich" strategy will only net us enough money to fund the federal government for 8 days? What the heck is that going to do for us when it comes to balancing the budget? The republicans really do need to get on board with the president's program boy. :please:

Obama started his administration blasting the Bush era tax cuts as the bane of the American economy. Durbin, Schumer, Pelosi and Reid were all right there with him, standing shoulder to shouder, the quintessential liberal phalanx of solidarity. All declaring the Bush era tax cuts would be the death of us. These days the opinions of Obama et-al have 'evolved', in similar fashion to their views on gay marriage, I guess. Now all of a sudden, the Bush era tax cuts are the last thing standing between the destruction of the middle class, and their continued prosperity (as prosperity is now loosely defined and adjusted by social justice advocates and present day liberal Keynesian ideologues).

No matter how many times republicans and those who couldn't possibly be tagged as just another partisan puppet, immigrants like Mark Steyn, point out how ridiculous the Obama led argument known as "the rich should pay their fair share" really is, folks like vector will still drink from the cup of monkey vomit offered up by by the priests of the party of loons. Common sense is a thing of the past for the democrat faithful. That's why, the fact they are being used as pawns by liberals, escapes them. Liberals must remain in positions of power to effect the world transformation of their vision. Therefore they have cultivated a legion of voter-serfs, if you will, who are quite content to run the country in the ground, in pursuit if their daily dalliances. In return, the dems insure they are properly housed, have an Obamaphone in their pocket, are well fed and have unfettered access to free abortion clinics.

The republicans need to stick by their guns. The bottom line is this, if something good happens the dems will say they did it, if something bad happens they will say the republicans (Bush) did it. Their whole economic argument, the centerpiece of the so-called Obama economic policy, are the BUSH ERA TAX CUTS, anybody else find that to be a bit ironic? Obama's big idea, is to continue the Bush tax cuts he once decried as our biggest fiscal burden? nicker:

if it was up to me which it isn't let all the tax cut's run out and the agreed upon spending cuts go into effect get the debt under control

[TheRealThing]

if it was up to me which it isn't let all the tax cut's run out and the agreed upon spending cuts go into effect get the debt under control

Not only is it not up to you, it is not even up to the House of Representatives, as is clearly outlined in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 7, clause 1), all bills relating to revenue, generally tax bills, must originate in the House of Representatives. And as has been mentioned over and over again by literally thousands of irate American citizens, the Obama, Reid and Pelosi led coalition of insurrectionist democrats, have circumvented the power of the House to do their job by not acting on duly passed budgetary legislation coming up out of the House for nearly four years now. They don't want to have their spending inhibited in any way by a budget voted on by the congress, or the people of the United States.

And most, if not all Americans would agree with you, if your assumptions were entirely correct. Unfortuately there is one element of your suggested remedy for our fiscal distress which is altogether untrue. There are no "agreed upon spending cuts." Raping the military is certainly not the answer here. If there were any agreed cuts, as a nation, we'd be on our way out of this mess. There are, in fact, exponential Obama insisted upon, spending increases, in all of our futures and they are massive. Are you really trying to tell me you can't figure out that the 22.8 trillion dollar deficit, as posted in the predictions of the "national debt clock" by your cohort RealVille, aren't direct contradictions to any assertion that we are cutting anywhere? As I already mentioned today, cutting down on proposed spending increases a smidge or two, does not represent any kind of a cut. It's just another way for dems to cleverly lie their way out of any responsibility for continuing to force us into bankruptcy at the speed of light. We have yet to see the dems willing to cut the first dime, it's a complete load of bull.

You or nobody else can even start to explain to me why we are allowing this ever increasing spending madness to keep going on. The best of the brightest minds the liberals have to offer, won't even attempt to justify the suicidal rate of federal spending which, can only be described as a 'feeding frenzy'. By the end of Obama's second term, there won't be a thing left of our economy except a little blood in the water. We don't have two countries here, when the economy tanks, causing everybody to lose their savings, their pension funds and then the medical system crashes, it will happen to everybody not just the republicans.

The one saving grace might well have been our two party system of checks and balances, and a potent and functioning legislative branch, to keep us from having to hit the streets, scavenging for food like in some scene out of a sci-fi film. But no, you guys want to hand all the keys for the kingdom to one man, who controls one party, the dems. And would gleefully see the republican party laying in ruins, thusly, guaranteeing the demise of our land. We need the two parties. If someone would have told me America would allow one party to define the other I'd never have believed it, but, that's what is going on. The idea that all the dems are saints of somekind, who always tell the truth, while all the republicans are evel rich white guys who always lie, is so absurd, I can't believe anybody would seriously need to respond to it. Why not let our government protect us the way they are supposed to?

[vundy33]

This should have been settled a long time ago

This!

[vector]

Not only is it not up to you, it is not even up to the House of Representatives, as is clearly outlined in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 7, clause 1), all bills relating to revenue, generally tax bills, must originate in the House of Representatives. And as has been mentioned over and over again by literally thousands of irate American citizens, the Obama, Reid and Pelosi led coalition of insurrectionist democrats, have circumvented the power of the House to do their job by not acting on duly passed budgetary legislation coming up out of the House for nearly four years now. They don't want to have their spending inhibited in any way by a budget voted on by the congress, or the people of the United States.

And most, if not all Americans would agree with you, if your assumptions were entirely correct. Unfortuately there is one element of your suggested remedy for our fiscal distress which is altogether untrue. There are no "agreed upon spending cuts." Raping the military is certainly not the answer here. If there were any agreed cuts, as a nation, we'd be on our way out of this mess. There are, in fact, exponential Obama insisted upon, spending increases, in all of our futures and they are massive. Are you really trying to tell me you can't figure out that the 22.8 trillion dollar deficit, as posted in the predictions of the "national debt clock" by your cohort RealVille, aren't direct contradictions to any assertion that we are cutting anywhere? As I already mentioned today, cutting down on proposed spending increases a smidge or two, does not represent any kind of a cut. It's just another way for dems to cleverly lie their way out of any responsibility for continuing to force us into bankruptcy at the speed of light. We have yet to see the dems willing to cut the first dime, it's a complete load of bull.

You or nobody else can even start to explain to me why we are allowing this ever increasing spending madness to keep going on. The best of the brightest minds the liberals have to offer, won't even attempt to justify the suicidal rate of federal spending which, can only be described as a 'feeding frenzy'. By the end of Obama's second term, there won't be a thing left of our economy except a little blood in the water. We don't have two countries here, when the economy tanks, causing everybody to lose their savings, their pension funds and then the medical system crashes, it will happen to everybody not just the republicans.

The one saving grace might well have been our two party system of checks and balances, and a potent and functioning legislative branch, to keep us from having to hit the streets, scavenging for food like in some scene out of a sci-fi film. But no, you guys want to hand all the keys for the kingdom to one man, who controls one party, the dems. And would gleefully see the republican party laying in ruins, thusly, guaranteeing the demise of our land. We need the two parties. If someone would have told me America would allow one party to define the other I'd never have believed it, but, that's what is going on. The idea that all the dems are saints of somekind, who always tell the truth, while all the republicans are evel rich white guys who always lie, is so absurd, I can't believe anybody would seriously need to respond to it. Why not let our government protect us the way they are supposed to?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_Control_Act_of_2011

[TheRealThing]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_Control_Act_of_2011

The Budget Control Act of 2011 doesn't have any agreed cuts in it. In effect, it amounts to congress holding a gun to it's own head in an effort to force the dems to cut something, somewhere. Because it is unthinkable to place the whole of American citizenry at risk from military action from without, the republicans wrongly assumed that such a drastic dereliction of congressional duty, would be the 'red line' the dems would dare not cross. Wrong, they are more than willing to reduce our military to levels insufficient to protect our land. Thanks to the moron liberals that now permeate our government, military secrets are a thing of the past. Therefore, our enemies are more than aware of our military capability to respond to a threat. The la-la's aren't worried because they believe everybody in the world is eager to get into the "imagine" club, ala the vision of John Lennon.

The only reason America remains free and unchallenged by rogue armies from around the world is because of her military deterrent. This is what happens when pot heads get into positions of leadership. These are lyrics from Lennon's "Imagine" album---

"Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world"

^The words of this sentence, is at the heart of the concept of social justice, and is the driver of liberal dems. Only a loser of epic proportion, could believe a situation such as is described in the text above, could ever exist on this earth. Americans are so far removed from want, they don't know how ravenous the wolves that stalk us really are. True believer liberals buy into it hook, line and sinker and, are doing their best to bring it to fruition. To say liberals are naive doesn't quite cut it. So, we come full circle. The dems will not cut spending or spending increases, and the republicans will not raise taxes. If you'd have told me 10 years ago that working folks would demand to be taxed more, I'd never have believed it.

The preamble to the US Constitution lists national defense, as one of the five functions of the federal government. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence" How about we just agree to eliminate the waste at the federal level, as sort of a 'rolling start' enroute to making some meaningful spending cuts?

[vector]

The Budget Control Act of 2011 doesn't have any agreed cuts in it. In effect, it amounts to congress holding a gun to it's own head in an effort to force the dems to cut something, somewhere. Because it is unthinkable to place the whole of American citizenry at risk from military action from without, the republicans wrongly assumed that such a drastic dereliction of congressional duty, would be the 'red line' the dems would dare not cross. Wrong, they are more than willing to reduce our military to levels insufficient to protect our land. Thanks to the moron liberals that now permeate our government, military secrets are a thing of the past. Therefore, our enemies are more than aware of our military capability to respond to a threat. The la-la's aren't worried because they believe everybody in the world is eager to get into the "imagine" club, ala the vision of John Lennon.

The only reason America remains free and unchallenged by rogue armies from around the world is because of her military deterrent. This is what happens when pot heads get into positions of leadership. These are lyrics from Lennon's "Imagine" album---

"Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world"

^The words of this sentence, is at the heart of the concept of social justice, and is the driver of liberal dems. Only a loser of epic proportion, could believe a situation such as is described in the text above, could ever exist on this earth. Americans are so far removed from want, they don't know how ravenous the wolves that stalk us really are. True believer liberals buy into it hook, line and sinker and, are doing their best to bring it to fruition. To say liberals are naive doesn't quite cut it. So, we come full circle. The dems will not cut spending or spending increases, and the republicans will not raise taxes. If you'd have told me 10 years ago that working folks would demand to be taxed more, I'd never have believed it.

The preamble to the US Constitution lists national defense, as one of the five functions of the federal government. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence" How about we just agree to eliminate the waste at the federal level, as sort of a 'rolling start' enroute to making some meaningful spending cuts?

House vote

The House passed the Budget Control Act[1] on August 1, 2011 by a vote of 269–161.
174 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted for it, while 66 Republicans and 95 Democrats
voted against it.[14]
Senate vote

The Senate passed the Act on August 2, 2011 by a vote of 74–26.
6 Democrats and 19 Republicans voted against it.[21]

[TheRealThing]

House vote

The House passed the Budget Control Act[1] on August 1, 2011 by a vote of 269–161.
174 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted for it, while 66 Republicans and 95 Democrats
voted against it.[14]
Senate vote

The Senate passed the Act on August 2, 2011 by a vote of 74–26.
6 Democrats and 19 Republicans voted against it.[21]

Just don't fire on all cylinders, do ya?

[Bob Seger]

Just don't fire on all cylinders, do ya?

How can he? His coil wire isn't hooked up.

[vector]

How can he? His coil wire isn't hooked up.

i got your coil wire hanging

:lmao:

[Bob Seger]

It's amazing how even the simpliest of things are so way over your head.

[WideRight05]

It's amazing how even the simpliest of things are so far over your head.

He needs to get on BigDawg since he seems to comprehend things much better on that account.