Ace of Spades HQ

December 16, 2010

House Voting On Tax Deal. UPDATE: Done 277-148 (I Blame Bush)
— DrewM

They got though their speed bump from earlier today by allowing the Democrats to vote separately on an amendment that would have raised the Death Tax and then on final passage. This gave liberals the chance to vote yes on raising the Death Tax and then no on the deal as a whole. It was a crazy procedural thing.

They are now voting on the whole deal as the Senate passed it. It's in the bag.

Update: They already have over 230 votes for it, so that's that.

Here's the full story.

The "debate" was like Primal Scream Therapy for the Democrats. They are on their way out of power and they are getting rolled by the Republicans and Obama (for whom they carried so much water for two years and have a lost majority to show for it). They wanted to vent a bit.

Side note: Thank God for technology. Before, I'd watch this stuff because I'm a political junkie but I did it quietly and out of sight of my friends. It was embarrassing. Now thanks to blogs and Twitter, I can share my secret shame with other like minded geeks.

Fun factoid: From Dave Weigel via Brian Faughnan (who follows Weigel on Twitter so you don't have too).

262 votes so far for tax deal. Bush tax cuts passed House in 2001 with 230 votes

What can you say to that other than, "Thanks Nancy"?

Posted by: DrewM at 07:47 PM | Comments (105)
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.

1 This so sucks.

Posted by: runningrn at December 16, 2010 07:49 PM (ihSHD)

Jan. 4th can't come soon enough.

The Republicans should put up "repeal" bills over and over and make the Dems vote no. Those guys should have to wear a scarlet letter from now until 2012.

Posted by: elliot m at December 16, 2010 07:52 PM (pDWjd)

3 Thank you for this interesting post. You are interesting. I will definitely be interested in other interesting things. I have shared this interesting post with my friends. They are interested, too.

Posted by: Interested Non-Spammer at December 16, 2010 07:52 PM (5I0Yr)

4 And now for the next item on the Reid/Democrat agenda: Amnesty, Version 666

From NumbersUSA

Updated: Thursday, December 16, 2010, 11:13 PM

"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has filed a motion for cloture on the DREAM Act Amnesty, setting up a vote on the House-passed version of the bill for Saturday morning. The bill needs 60 votes to start debate. YOUR IMMEDIATE ACTION ON FRIDAY IS REQUESTED. Please call your two U.S. Senators by dialing the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121. Ask for your one of your Senators and urge them to vote NO on the DREAM Act..."

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at December 16, 2010 08:00 PM (swuwV)

5 Shit sandwich.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at December 16, 2010 08:00 PM (PW4WV)

6 I am confused as fuck about all of this: was this a good or bad development? I just havent been keeping up with this particular bill...

Posted by: The Drizzle at December 16, 2010 08:00 PM (ysCLj)

7 they are getting rolled by the Republicans

Hate to say this, but I think the Republicans are the ones getting rolled.

Obama and Dems get exactly what they want, which is a whipping boy of the economy doesn't recover and credit if it does, plus they get the death tax back.

In the meantime, Obama has been handed his 2012 campaign platform on a silver platter.

It's a shitty deal all around and it really only benefits the Dems. The continuation of the Bush tax rates was a small price for them to pay for the ability to continue to blame Bush and the Republicans for everything.

Posted by: wiserbud at December 16, 2010 08:02 PM (EW49d)

8 So what was the final rate of theft by Pelosi, Reid et al. from dead people?

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at December 16, 2010 08:03 PM (swuwV)

9 Fox news alert chick came on to say all this, while repeating the 'tax cuts for the rich' crap that obvious rinos are repeating, as well as trying to discredit supply side economics.. uhu (a common sense econ 101 thing.. just ask those boom towns that popped up on the east coast of Africa when those Pirates were taking back 30 mil in ransom money.. derrrr). Looks like she's at fox strickly for looks and not politics. She's a liberals liberal.

Posted by: John Frum at December 16, 2010 08:04 PM (EunZW)

oh joy!

we are "allowed" to keep our tax rates the same, but for that "privilege" they get to take another 850 billion dollars from our grandchildrens pockets.

you can count me underwhelmed.

Posted by: shoey at December 16, 2010 08:05 PM (yCH89)

11 The Drizzle: "I am confused as fuck about all of this: was this a good or bad development? I just havent been keeping up with this particular bill..."

If you reside in D.C., mostly good. If you reside elsewhere, mostly bad. There's more deficit spending and a brief extension (2 yrs.) of current tax rates. So, no actual tax cuts with more federal spending. Interpret that as you wish.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at December 16, 2010 08:08 PM (swuwV)

12 There's more deficit spending and a brief extension (2 yrs.) of current tax rates. So, no actual tax cuts with more federal spending. Interpret that as you wish. Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at December 17, 2010 12:08 AM Yeah, I fail to see how that = "Democrats getting rolled by Republicans". Seems to be the other way around.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 16, 2010 08:10 PM (NITzp)

13 Drizzle,

Also, there's also the legally sanctioned theft from dead people and the punishment for accumulated wealth by working/saving Americans. So that's so fucking bad as to be immeasurable. But that's the government we deserve, apparently.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at December 16, 2010 08:13 PM (swuwV)

14 Oh, please, mean Brer Republican, please don' throw me in the briar patch!!!

Posted by: Democrats at December 16, 2010 08:15 PM (EW49d)

15 THE DEATH TAX IS BACK! THE DEATH TAX IS BACK!

Posted by: Greedy rotten bastard Democrat at December 16, 2010 08:15 PM (GNhXz)

16 "Also, there's also...?" How do I get in touch withe the US Department of Redundancy Department? It's still getting funded, right?

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at December 16, 2010 08:17 PM (swuwV)

17 What gets me is the stupid fuck Dem voters who support getting those rich bastards. The money doesn't go to them it goes to an overbearing bloated government which sprinkles crumbs to the plebians to buy their votes. I am so tired of this class warfare shit and believe me I don't come anywhere near the 5 mil threshold.

Posted by: Ohio Dan at December 16, 2010 08:18 PM (GNhXz)

18 Posted by: iknowtheleft at December 17, 2010 12:15 AM Kinda reminds me of the Slapsgiving Slap Bet on HIMYM. Barney has the choice of 10 slaps immediately or 5 slaps at any time in the future. The Democrats gave the GOP and America the same choice. 'We can either rape you really badly now, or just slightly less, periodically, in the future.'

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 16, 2010 08:19 PM (NITzp)

19 it's awfully early in the thread, but #15 is a already a strong contender for thread winner.

Posted by: shoey at December 16, 2010 08:19 PM (yCH89)

20 How is forcing Barry to run for re-election on a platform of raising taxes a bad thing?

Posted by: Tom at December 16, 2010 08:23 PM (wj+Hw)

21 At least the "continuing the no-budget rape without a budget until the next fiscal year" spending bill is dead (so far).

Posted by: cthulhu at December 16, 2010 08:25 PM (kaalw)

22 How is forcing Barry to run for re-election on a platform of raising taxes a bad thing?

Ummmm, he ran on the same platform last time and got 52% of the vote.

Posted by: wiserbud at December 16, 2010 08:25 PM (EW49d)

23 How is forcing Barry to run for re-election on a platform of raising taxes a bad thing? Posted by: Tom at December 17, 2010 12:23 AM This sets him up to argue in 2012 that he did what the GOP wanted and kept the tax rates the same, but that didn't help the economy. And the GOP has had control of the House since 2010 and they haven't fixed the economy, so now they have given him no choice but to raise taxes. In other words, he will blame Republicans. As the Democrats always do. And, as usual, the MF-ing media will trumpet those talking points and the American electorate will fall for it again. And this is all especially true if the GOP nominates a RINO squish who refuses to articulate conservatism and refuses to attack Obama and the Democrats on their failed policies and explain to the electorate why conservative policies could turn the economy around for the better. Nominate another McCain and Obama wins easily.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 16, 2010 08:28 PM (NITzp)

24 He can also argue "I wanted to raise taxes on only the rich back in 2010, but the GOP wouldn't let me, so now I have to raise them on everyone. Don't blame me, blame the GOP."

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 16, 2010 08:29 PM (NITzp)

25 Ummmm, he ran on the same platform last time and got 52% of the vote.

Uh, no, he didn't.
"No one making under $250K will have their taxes raised..blah blah blah"

Posted by: Tom at December 16, 2010 08:30 PM (wj+Hw)

26 He can also argue "I wanted to raise taxes on only the rich back in 2010, but the GOP wouldn't let me, so now I have to raise them on everyone. Don't blame me, blame the GOP."

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 17, 2010 12:29 AM (NITzp)

Answer? Who was in charge of Congress when he voted to extend the Bush tax cuts, Pelosi and Reid.

Next.

Posted by: Tom at December 16, 2010 08:33 PM (wj+Hw)

27 Who here believes that if tax rates had gone up the GOP would have brought them back down? And if they did so, at what price?

Posted by: eman at December 16, 2010 08:34 PM (XXyJt)

28 "No one making under $250K will have their taxes raised..blah blah blah"

Obama: "I will eliminate those evil Bush tax cuts...."

Democrats/Idiot Independents: "YAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYY!!!! OBAMA! OBAMA! OBAMA!"

Get used to it. You will hear it for the next two years. In fact, he's already started with that theme last week.

Posted by: wiserbud at December 16, 2010 08:35 PM (EW49d)

29 25, You assume spending won't be cut. Remember, the TEA Party is powerful now.

Posted by: eman at December 16, 2010 08:36 PM (XXyJt)

30 Answer? Who was in charge of Congress when he voted to extend the Bush tax cuts, Pelosi and Reid. Next. Posted by: Tom at December 17, 2010 12:33 AM That's the answer you and I give, sure. But will the GOP nominee? And will the 45% of the electorate who still gives Obama a positive job approval believe it? Who knows. After 2 years of this fucker, he still has 45% job approval. If this were McCain residing over the same flustercuck, it would be 15%. Apparently, South Park was off a bit on their 25% of Americans are riTARDed estimate. It seems it more along the lines of 45%.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 16, 2010 08:37 PM (NITzp)

31 Answer? Who was in charge of Congress when he voted to extend the Bush tax cuts, Pelosi and Reid.

That would be the same answer that was given when the Dems blamed the current recession and spending insanity on Bush.

"Who has been in charge of Congress since 2006?"

Meaningless to the average voter.

Posted by: wiserbud at December 16, 2010 08:38 PM (EW49d)

"If you like your fucking Bush tax rates you, er, uh, can keep your fucking Bush tax rates. Assholes" ... B.H. Obama, Dec 2010

My only satisfaction in this is that the left is hating it, and they're gonna hate life even worse when Nancy Pelosiyeva give up the gavel in Jan 2011.

Posted by: Huckleberry at December 16, 2010 08:39 PM (fqOyi)

33 Taxes were going to go up. The GOP had to bargain, they do not have the votes to do otherwise. No matter what bill is passed the Dems will try to us it against the GOP and Independents will be too stupid and cowardly to know what to do or think. The bottom line is the GOP does not have to fight to lower taxes in 2011. They have to fight to lower spending.

Posted by: eman at December 16, 2010 08:40 PM (XXyJt)

34 I don't even worry about 2012. If more than 40% of America still takes that retard seriously, about anything, then we're irrevocably screwed, anyway. Posted by: iknowtheleft at December 17, 2010 12:31 AM Well, his job approval is currently still at 45%. I'd say we're pretty much screwed. Someone wrote an article recently saying that the problem with America isn't Obama, it's our electorate. And that's spot-on. There is no way that a President as riTARDed as Obama should have a job approval of 45%. Yet, here we are. The problem isn't Obama, the problem is the American electorate which gives power to riTARDs like Obama, Reid and Pelosi.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 16, 2010 08:40 PM (NITzp)

35 They have to fight to lower spending.

Being in control of the House should make that easier. Assuming they are serious about cutting spending.

The latest go-round with the earmarks tends not to support that assumption

Posted by: wiserbud at December 16, 2010 08:43 PM (EW49d)

36 "Who has been in charge of Congress since 2006?" Meaningless to the average voter. Posted by: wiserbud at December 17, 2010 12:38 AM Exactly. "The failed policies of the last 8 years!" was the mantra during the campaign of 2008. Nevermind that the Democrats took over a good economy in JAN 2007 and proceeded to run it into the ground. After that, what did the American electorate do? They gave the Democrats the White House and super-majorities in both Houses of Congress. Don't underestimate the utter riTARDation of the American electorate. Facts don't mean shit to the average voter, especially when the GOP fails to even get the facts to them.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 16, 2010 08:43 PM (NITzp)

37 Just so you idiots know, I was against this horrible bill before you!!! Idiots!!!

Posted by: Mark Levin at December 16, 2010 08:45 PM (EunZW)

38 @Clyde, according to the comments over at Kos, that 45% is way high.

The tax issue is the Dem's problem now, they out voted the GOP to keep the Bush rates.

Posted by: Tom at December 16, 2010 08:47 PM (wj+Hw)

39 An intelligent analysis from over at Kos.

If the economy keeps on tanking, Obama is the sitting President, and will be blamed and thrown out of office as the one in power when things keep going wrong, and the Democrats will probably lose the Senate because they will be on the defensive in 2012 even under the best of circumstances because they are defending more vulnerable seats.

If things are better, the Bush tax cuts will be credited for any gains and will be politically impossible to get rid of. There is no way that a sitting President running for re-election gets labeled a tax raiser during the campaign. No way. The tax cuts get extended again before the GOP nominee is chosen to try and take that off the table.

This was a trap for the ages the GOP has set and sprung. They own the tax cuts, and the Democrats own the deficit and the austerity push to come.

Posted by: Tom at December 16, 2010 08:51 PM (wj+Hw)

40 they out voted the GOP to keep the Bush rates.

And why do you think that is? Do you honestly believe they did it because they think it was the right thing to do or that they have just given up the fight?

They did it because they know that, in the end, they actually benefit more from this deal than the Republicans do. They are now able to continue blaming the bad economy on Bush and the Republicans, while getting a shitload of additional spending that they love so very much.

Posted by: wiserbud at December 16, 2010 08:51 PM (EW49d)

41 An intelligent analysis from over at Kos.

The fact that it came from Kos pretty much undermines your opinion regarding the intelligence of the analysis.

Do you honestly believe that the media is going to blame Obama if the economy remains stagnant? Get real.

The term "Bush tax cuts" is ingrained in the left's brain, like a deep scar. Things get better, it's because Obama fixed things. If they don't, it's because the Republicans forced him to give in to their demands and continue the tax cuts.

Seriously, have you not been paying attention at all for the last 10 years?

Posted by: wiserbud at December 16, 2010 08:56 PM (EW49d)

42 The MFM threw the kitchen sink at the TEA Party and failed to make a dent. They game has changed. The TEA Party holds the ultimate power: trillion.

Posted by: eman at December 16, 2010 09:00 PM (XXyJt)

43 sigh the game

Posted by: eman at December 16, 2010 09:01 PM (XXyJt)

44 Seriously, have you not been paying attention at all for the last 10 years?

Posted by: wiserbud at December 17, 2010 12:56 AM (EW49d)

Not to the media, no.

They'll turn on him eventually, they always turn.

I welcome the Obama campaign slogan for 2012

"No Matter How Much You Make, I'm Raising Your Taxes".

Posted by: Tom at December 16, 2010 09:01 PM (wj+Hw)

This sets him up to argue in 2012 that he did what the GOP wanted and kept the tax rates the same, but that didn't help the economy.

Seriously? Seriously? He's going to get re-elected by saying "I knew it was going to fail but I went for it anyway"?

Especially since it was his idea in the first place?

No, he will not get re-elected arging that he sabotaged the economy to prove a point.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 16, 2010 09:06 PM (BvBKY)

46 Taxes are not going up. Thank the TEA Party.

Posted by: eman at December 16, 2010 09:12 PM (XXyJt)

47 This sets him up to argue in 2012 that he did what the GOP wanted and kept the tax rates the same, but that didn't help the economy. Seriously? Seriously? He's going to get re-elected by saying "I knew it was going to fail but I went for it anyway"? Posted by: AmishDude at December 17, 2010 01:06 AM No. Recall the "the GOP is holding Obama hostage" mantra. He didn't do it knowing it would fail, he did it because he had no choice, because "the GOP was holding me hostage". The Left always blames the GOP for everything. Recall the mid-terms of 2006. The economy was humming along, but the Democrats blamed the GOP for overseeing "the worst economy since Hoover!!!" And the American electorate fell for their BS.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 16, 2010 09:15 PM (NITzp)

48 On the bright side, repeal of the death tax will be a big farm issue in 2012. THe GOP locked up the South in 2010. In 2012, time to lock up the mid-west and great plains.

Posted by: swamp yankee at December 16, 2010 09:15 PM (3DIBw)

49 Taxes are not going up. Thank the TEA Party. Posted by: eman at December 17, 2010 01:12 AM Isn't the TEA Party about cutting taxes and cutting spending? Well, our taxes aren't getting cut -- and are actually going up in some cases -- and spending is going up. So what did the TEA Party accomplish exactly?

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 16, 2010 09:17 PM (NITzp)

50 The key to success for the GOP is to cut spending from day one. Let Ebola veto it. Let the Dems vote no and cry about the children. The money is gone. That crap won't work anymore. If you tell the American People taxes will not go up and spending will go down, down a lot, they will take that deal. Especially if you structure the cuts so that they are not reversed as the economy improves and tax revenue increases. Give the American People a concrete target of no debt by such and such date, and they will take the deal.

Posted by: eman at December 16, 2010 09:18 PM (XXyJt)

51 54, The Bush tax rates are fixed in place. Remember, this is still the old Congress.

Posted by: eman at December 16, 2010 09:20 PM (XXyJt)

52 This was not something the Democrats planned or wanted. The Porkulus was supposed to fix the economy instantly. That was an article of faith for every Democrat. By November 2010, the economy was supposed to be growing so robustly that the Dems would sweep away the last vestiges of GOP resistance and get a massive mandate for tax hikes - economists would be demanding tax hikes to cool down the rampant growth. Obama, Pelosi, Reid and all of them were caught flat-footed when the Porkulus failed to have any effect on the recession. They had no Plan B. Agreeing to extending the Bush tax rates across the board is humiliating to them, it's a desperation move, it's a betrayal of their base and their own most cherished beliefs and values, and it's thrust them into an alien world in which they have to at least pretend to acknowledge that raising taxes kills economic growth. This is a dark, dark day for the Dems.

Posted by: stuiec at December 16, 2010 09:21 PM (chhYn)

53 As for next year, Barky is going to be on his final run, now. He's not shooting for another term. He's just shooting for us. We get a little respite at the moment, but he's coming back even more obnoxious, nasty, petty, stupid, America-hating and vindictive than ever - as he showed when he launched into the whole hostage-taker routine as his "victory" speech (WTF). That was just a taste, I would say, of what 2011 holds. And I think the rest of the world understands that this isn't a game of any sort. Barky actually is that stupid and he does hate America that much. Posted by: iknowtheleft Yeah, so what else is new? Let Ebola rant. Who listens to him now? You're the new House and Senate have yet to be tested. So why start wailing now? Keeping the tax rates fixed is exactly what the Dems did not ever want to happen. Period.

Posted by: eman at December 16, 2010 09:23 PM (XXyJt)

54 sigh You're right, that is.

Posted by: eman at December 16, 2010 09:25 PM (XXyJt)

55 The Dems have a huge majority in the House and they just passed a GOP bill. Some folks here are pissed that that just happened. WTF.

Posted by: eman at December 16, 2010 09:27 PM (XXyJt)

Of course its a bad bill.

Mark Levin was going to scream at Obama and give him nuggies until Obama signed a bill with permanent tax cuts with no UI benefits.

Posted by: swamp yankee at December 16, 2010 09:34 PM (3DIBw)

57 62, Ok. This post needs some boobs.

Posted by: eman at December 16, 2010 09:36 PM (XXyJt)

58 Look at the alternate reality: The omnibus bill passes and the Bush tax rates evaporate. "Hooray," say conservatives, "we'll fix everything with our new Congress come January!" Only in January, guess what? The GOP doesn't have a veto-proof majority in the House, and in the Senate it's still in the minority. So whatever was left in place on New Years Day stays in place: the GOP can't force changes through the Senate or past an Obama veto. Now back to this reality: the Bush tax rates are the January 1 status quo, and it's the Dems who can't change them. And the continuing resolution only goes to January, where now the GOP has leverage over Reid and Obama rather than impotently raging over locked-in spending. This reality is way better than the alternate one.

Posted by: stuiec at December 16, 2010 09:37 PM (chhYn)

59 Plenty of boobs around. Breasts, not so much.

Posted by: swamp yankee at December 16, 2010 09:37 PM (3DIBw)

Mark Levin was going to scream at Obama and give him nuggies until Obama signed a bill with permanent tax cuts with no UI benefits.

Posted by: swamp yankee at December 17, 2010 01:34 AM (3DIBw)

Nuggies?

Yeah, no.

Posted by: ErikW at December 16, 2010 09:40 PM (k80QJ)

61 Mark Levin was going to scream at Obama and give him nuggies until Obama signed a bill with permanent tax cuts with no UI benefits. Posted by: swamp yankee at December 17, 2010 01:34 AM Mark Levin aside, what is our goal here? From what I have been reading here and other places the last 2 years, our economy is going in a downward spiral into the crapper. So is our goal to actually STOP the downward spiral or to simply go slower down the spiral than the Democrats want to take us? In other words, is our goal to save the country from this spiral into European socialism or is it to simply put it off a few years? From what people keep saying about "this is not the hill to die on" and "this is the best deal we can get", it seems that we're now simply agreeing that we're inevitably heading towards European socialism, we don't have the will to fight it, so we're just going to keep agreeing to deals that will put off the inevitable for a while longer. Or, all the people who say that our economy is going in the crapper and the Democrats are sending us there are full of it and things aren't as bad as they say and that's why we can afford all these crappy 'deals'. Honestly, I don't know what to believe anymore. On one hand, people say we're headed to disaster, while on the other they say we have to compromise.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 16, 2010 09:41 PM (NITzp)

62 Nuggies? Yeah, no. Posted by: ErikW at December 17, 2010 01:40 AM (k80QJ) I agree. Levin has always struck me as a purple nurple man.

Posted by: stuiec at December 16, 2010 09:43 PM (chhYn)

I'm just trying to picture this imaginary world some grandstanders seem to beleive exists.

A world where Reid and Obama agree to a bill with permanent tax cuts, spending cuts, no UI benefits and unicorns, leprechauns and la chupa cabras roam the streets.

Posted by: swamp yankee at December 16, 2010 09:46 PM (3DIBw)

64 In the real world this has been a good day. Not a perfect one. It's a poor metaphor, but we're still the doughboys in the trenches at 6AM on November 11, 1918, we know and they know there's five hours to go and they're still lobbing HE at us.

DREAM must be stopped at all costs.

START needs a full debate, whether in this session or the next.

I'll shed no tears if DADT repeal passes. We can afford to let that one go if we can hold firm on the others.

Posted by: JEM at December 16, 2010 09:49 PM (o+SC1)

65 Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 17, 2010 01:41 AM (NITzp) Comment 65 sums it up well. Read it and see.

Posted by: eman at December 16, 2010 09:52 PM (XXyJt)

66 Honestly, I don't know what to believe anymore. On one hand, people say we're headed to disaster, while on the other they say we have to compromise. Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 17, 2010 01:41 AM (NITzp) Politics is not the art of compromise. However, politics is the art of the possible. With the Dems still holding big majorities in both houses of the lame duck Congress, what was possible for the GOP was a lot less than what it ideally wanted. Picking " a hill to die on" implies a willingness to lose everything - to give your opponent total victory - if your position doesn't carry the day. Given the fact that the GOP will be stronger in the new Congress, it's good that they managed to keep Reid and Pelosi from forcing through their preferred taxes and spending like they forced through Obamacare.

Posted by: stuiec at December 16, 2010 09:52 PM (chhYn)

67 I'm just trying to picture this imaginary world some grandstanders seem to beleive exists. A world where Reid and Obama agree to a bill with permanent tax cuts, spending cuts, no UI benefits and unicorns, leprechauns and la chupa cabras roam the streets. Posted by: swamp yankee at December 17, 2010 01:46 AM Well, the Democrats do that all the time. They imagine a world where they get 100% of what they want. They start the negotiation there. They demand 100%. They argue for it, fight for it, lie for it, smear for it, get the MF-ing media on their side for it... and then end up with 80% of what they want. On the other side, the GOP says "oh please, base, what is this imaginary world you believe exists where we get 100% of what we want. That's just not realistically possible." So they don't bother even trying to get that. They start off asking for 50% of what they want, since they feel that is all that is realistically possible. Then the Democrats and MF-ing media team up to destroy the Republican's proposals and the GOP ends up settling and compromising for 25% of what they actually wanted. And people wonder why Democrats have great GOTV efforts and the no one is energized by Republicans who give up the fight without even getting in the ring.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 16, 2010 09:52 PM (NITzp)

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 17, 2010 01:41 AM (NITzp)

The goal?

Well for millions of Americans, Republican, Independents and swing voters, the goal is pinching enough pennies to buy Christmas gifts for their kids.

For many more, its making sure their business treads enough water, so they dont have to layoff friends and family.

For others, its just making sure they have enough money to pay for heating oil through the winter.

Some wealthy, retired and well-to-do activists may be able to turn everything into political gamesmanship. For many others, this wasnt the "hill to die on".

Playing "chicken" with people's paychecks is risky business.

Posted by: swamp yankee at December 16, 2010 09:56 PM (3DIBw)

69 Given the fact that the GOP will be stronger in the new Congress, it's good that they managed to keep Reid and Pelosi from forcing through their preferred taxes and spending like they forced through Obamacare. Posted by: stuiec at December 17, 2010 01:52 AM Actually, people keep contradicting themselves. They keep saying "the GOP was never going to get a better deal in the new Congress" as a reasoning behind why we had to agree to this shitty deal, then turn around and say "the GOP will be stronger in the new Congress". Stronger? Stronger how? Obviously not strong enough to get jack shit done, since people keep saying that since the Democrats have the Senate and Obama has the veto, then the GOP has no power at all to do anything. So we've already agreed that the new Congress will be completely irrelevant. In other words, the "victory" in the 2010 Mid-terms gained us nothing, since the Democrats still control the Senate and White House. So what I'm understanding here is that the "strong" new GOP House will be doing nothing but compromising with the Democrat Senate and Obama White House from JAN 2011 to NOV 2012.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 16, 2010 09:56 PM (NITzp)

70 74, WTF are you talking about? The Dems just passed a bill to keep the Bush tax rates in place. That's like vampires voting to have permanent daylight.

Posted by: eman at December 16, 2010 09:58 PM (XXyJt)

71 And people wonder why Democrats have great GOTV efforts and the no one is energized by Republicans who give up the fight without even getting in the ring. Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 17, 2010 01:52 AM (NITzp) Very true. Always start the negotiation by demanding 100 percent (or even more) of what you want. Make the other side fight for anything you concede, preferably by trading for something valuable in exchange. Otherwise you're giving away negotiating room.

Posted by: stuiec at December 16, 2010 09:59 PM (chhYn)

72 DREAM must be stopped at all costs.

Democrat Senators who are No or leaning no (thank you, Kos!) :

Max Baucus (MT) - (202) 224-2651

Kent Conrad (ND) - (202) 224-2043

Joe Manchin (WV) - (202) 224-3954

Nelson (NE) - (202) 224-6551

Mark Pryor (AR) - (202) 224-2353

Tester (MT) - (202) 224-2644

Kay Hagan (NC) - (202) 224-6342

Claire McCaskill (MO) - (202) 224-6154

Mary Landrieu (LA) - (202) 224-5824

Sometimes you do

Posted by: arhooley, conflicted Californian at December 16, 2010 10:03 PM (Mpz9c)

73 So what I'm understanding here is that the "strong" new GOP House will be doing nothing but compromising with the Democrat Senate and Obama White House from JAN 2011 to NOV 2012. Posted by: Clyde Shelton No, now the new GOP House will not have to fight to return taxes to the present rate and can focus on cutting spending. Right now the Dems are in a huge majority and they passed a bill to prevent tax rate hikes. Don't you get what a huge kick in the nuts that is for them? Did the GOP get everything they would want? No, of course not. How could they? The Dems are screwed because the Stimulus failed. This was a great victory.

Posted by: eman at December 16, 2010 10:04 PM (XXyJt)

74 Playing "chicken" with people's paychecks is risky business. Posted by: swamp yankee at December 17, 2010 01:56 AM You don't have to sell me sob stories about what other people have to go through. Personally, I don't care about what other people have to do. I care about the long term health of this nation. If suffering a little now will turn this nation around in the long term, then do it. Personally, I've been suffering on paying bills and such for the past 2 years and I am down to 4-5 weeks before I am broke (EUC is done and I've gone through my $40,000 IRA). If I don't get this job for which I interviewed on Monday, I'll be packing up everything from my house here, moving back home and searching for a Bankruptcy lawyer and trying to figure out where to go from there. This isn't about politics for me and millions of others. Short term bandaids are doing nothing to fix this economy and are just making it worse. There is NEVER going to be a perfect or good time to make the tough decisions to cut spending and cut taxes and stop extending EUC and EB. These compromises are nothing but political moves. Does the compromise improve the economy at all? No. It keeps the status quo. And the status quo is the reason why people are living paycheck to paycheck and pinching pennies to pay their heating bills. So instead of doing something that will improve their future, we 'compromise' to keep them in the same penny pinching, paycheck to paycheck existence. How does that help anything?

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 16, 2010 10:04 PM (NITzp)

75 How does that help anything? Posted by: Clyde Shelton Do nothing and taxes go up. The Dems are in the majority right now. Do you seriously expect them to cut taxes? BTW, break a leg on the job prospect.

Posted by: eman at December 16, 2010 10:08 PM (XXyJt)

76 76 - In the next session the GOP can do several things:

a) Make sure there are no further unfortunate Democrat legislative adventures

b) Make life very difficult in various ways for certain activist members of the executive branch (Holder, Solis, and my favorite pincushion Lisa Jackson) and maybe even a few particularly obnoxious members of the House.

c) Constrain the behavior of the executive branch through budgetary control.

What they can't do:

d) Move their own legislative agenda without some combination of Democrat and White House support.

Posted by: JEM at December 16, 2010 10:13 PM (o+SC1)

77 What I've heard is that the Rs will try to retroactively strip the bill of the pork + address the unfunded UI in the 112th Congress.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at December 16, 2010 10:13 PM (0g3ST)

You don't have to sell me sob stories about what other people have to go through. Personally, I don't care about what other people have to do. I care about the long term health of this nation. If suffering a little now will turn this nation around in the long term, then do it.

That's a winning message. Good grief.

You still havent explained how taxes rising on ever single American and many small businesses for the next two years is going to help "the long term health of this nation".

Unless you are still living in lala land and think Reid and Obama are going to bow down to the pipe dreams of conservative talk show hosts trying to "out
real-conservative" their competition.

Posted by: swamp yankee at December 16, 2010 10:17 PM (3DIBw)

79 So what I'm understanding here is that the "strong" new GOP House will be doing nothing but compromising with the Democrat Senate and Obama White House from JAN 2011 to NOV 2012. Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 17, 2010 01:56 AM (NITzp) Let's review. The Dems have a huge House majority and a damn-near filibuster-proof Senate majority, as well as the Presidency. Remember when Scott Brown was "the 41st vote" that would drive a stake through the heart of Obamacare? Turned out the GOP really was powerless to stop determined Democrats. In the next Congress, the GOP will have an outright House majority, and remember all tax bills must originate in the House. The Dems won't be able to propose any new taxes, not with any hope of enacting them. In the Senate, the GOP minority will be big enough that Snowe and Collins and Browne and Lindsay Graham won't be able to scuttle GOP positions by voting for cloture. So long as the Dems don't do away with the filibuster, the GOP will be able to force the Dems to negotiate in good faith. No, the GOP Senators won't be able to make the Dems pass every GOP proposal, but neither will they get steamrolled by Reid anymore. And again, there's a world of difference between having to fight to tear down Democrat programs that are already law and being able to use leverage against the Democrats when drafting new proposals. In the next Congress, the GOP will have the power to propose actual cuts in tax rates beyond the Bush rates - though the Dems will have the power to block them - but by contrast the Dems won't have the ability even to propose tax increases.

Posted by: stuiec at December 16, 2010 10:18 PM (chhYn)

Kay Hagan (NC) - (202) 224-6342

Claire McCaskill (MO) - (202) 224-6154

Mary Landrieu (LA) - (202) 224-5824

Sometimes you do

Posted by: arhooley, conflicted Californian at December 17, 2010 02:03 AM (Mpz9c)

Hagan? Kay Effin Hagan? I'm going to hound the hell out of that scrunt! I'm shocked, I tell ya! Shocked!

Posted by: Steph at December 16, 2010 10:20 PM (kOSds)

81 Do nothing and taxes go up. The Dems are in the majority right now. Do you seriously expect them to cut taxes? BTW, break a leg on the job prospect. Posted by: eman at December 17, 2010 02:08 AM Thanks, man. Prospects are good as I am a perfect fit for this position. And the other good thing is they are looking to fill 7 positions. Problem is that they are not set to make a decision on hiring until after the new year. So I have to sweat it out until then. I don't expect Democrats to cut taxes. I expected the Democrats to do their duty and pass a budget and vote on the taxes during their session. Not wait until this lame duck session and put together a flustercuck of a bill and put the blame on the GOP if they don't agree to everything. What I would want is the GOP to say "the Democrats had from JAN 2009 to OCT 2010 to pass a budget and renew the tax cuts. They failed to do so. The American people rejected their failures and reject this nonsense they are trying now. We the GOP have policies we know will help the economy and we plan to present them the first day of the new Congress. Obama and the Democrats are then free to vote against the will of the people if they so choose, but the blame for people's continued suffering will be on them." They can then suggest a bill where tax rates are kept the same for "the rich" and cut slightly for the middle class and poor. They can force the Democrats and Obama to argue against cutting taxes for those who need it the most. They can then suggest a 6-month extension to EUC/EB. Death tax rate and all the other stuff will be negotiable. The big things are the tax rates and the EUC/EB extensions. The point is, I expect our Congressmen and Senators to obey the will of the people from the NOV elections, as they are supposed to. Idealistic? Sure. But as a fiscal conservative, that is what I expect from my elected officials. Anything less is unacceptable. The TEA Party rose back in FEB 2009. If we are now in DEC 2010 and we're still accepting this crap as "the best we can get", then from where I'm sitting, we haven't accomplished anything. Keeping the status quo and not improving anything is not progress. The GOP is currently in a position of power. Every single day they should be out there repeating the mantra that "the people have spoken" in the NOV elections and this is not what they want. They want improvement, not status quo. We are rejecting the status quo now and we will present a bill for improvement of the economy the first week of the new session and it will be on the Democrats and Obama to go on record rejecting the will of the people. Keep saying that over and over and over. Enough of this "aw shucks, we just can't win" stuff, so we better compromise before the fight even begins. If our economic situation truly is as dire as people say, then this is the way to go. However, if I'm wrong and the situation really isn't dire, well, then I guess I'm wrong and we can continue playing these "compromise" games indefinitely. But I was under the understanding that our economy is headed for disaster. You don't stop disaster with 'compromise'.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 16, 2010 10:25 PM (NITzp)

82 the GOP will be able to force the Dems to negotiate in good faith. Posted by: stuiec at December 17, 2010 02:18 AM Democrats negotiate in good faith? Ha! And I'm the one living in la-la land? Look, in all seriousness, I understand all this political bullshit and what is "realistically possible". But you know what? People keep saying the economy is going to collapse if we keep the status quo. So it's time to stop accepting what is realistically possible and time to be bold. It's time to ignore the numbers and for someone -- or the entire GOP -- to have its Profiles in Courage moment. Unless of course the economy is not headed for disaster. Then I guess we can keep playing these games and accept the status quo.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 16, 2010 10:30 PM (NITzp)

83 These compromises are nothing but political moves. Does the compromise improve the economy at all? No. It keeps the status quo. And the status quo is the reason why people are living paycheck to paycheck and pinching pennies to pay their heating bills. So instead of doing something that will improve their future, we 'compromise' to keep them in the same penny pinching, paycheck to paycheck existence. Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 17, 2010 02:04 AM (NITzp) Here's a shocker: even though the GOP did better than the Dems in the midterm elections, the Dems who actually won seats in the House and Senate still get to vote against the GOP. The GOP didn't get appointed to a dictatorship, so there's still the messy bits of politics to live with - like for instance getting a majority in both the House and Senate to vote for bills you like and making sure the bill won't draw a veto from Obama.

Posted by: stuiec at December 16, 2010 10:30 PM (chhYn)

84 and for someone -- or the entire GOP -- to have its Profiles in Courage moment. What does that look like, Clyde? If the GOP stands firm and refuses to compromise on any point, and thereby allows the Democrats to maneuver around them, doesn't that just mean that the GOP fails to protect the American people from the Dems?

Posted by: stuiec at December 16, 2010 10:37 PM (chhYn)

85 Silly humans. You think you have won a great victory. I will ensure the government will be larger and larger, no matter what you do.

Posted by: The Baseline Budgeting Process at December 16, 2010 10:40 PM (AZGON)

86 The bill is terrible. It does keynesian stimulus incorrectly (if thats what you believe), and does supply side reforms incorrectly (so it won't increase growth rate). And most damning of all, it increases spending.

Posted by: **** at December 16, 2010 10:50 PM (MIaPf)

87 People objecting to this deal just wanted a better compromise, and the GOP gave up ten days too early. Obama was in a corner and this wasn't a game of chicken. He had to give in, and so did the GOP but he needed us more than we did them. All the proof you need is in the abdication presser where Barry ran away and left Billy Jeff to smooth out troubled waters. Clinton himself said this was the best deal "we could get." In other words, Barry's bargaining position becomes weaker after January. Why? Even Democrats pay taxes. If middle and lower class taxpayers saw a huge bite out of their paychecks in January, they would be asking why Barry didn't just keep things the way they were. If Barry, who is God and in charge of everything including the 111th Congress, let taxes go up on his precious constituency, they would be demanding his head on a pike. It was the GOP who wanted to keep the rates unchanged, and what would Barry say... "I wanted rates to stay low too, so I refused to agree to keep them low!" Even Democrats aren't stupid enough to believe that. Barry had to give in eventually... as did the GOP to reach a compromise. The GOP merely gave in too early. Clinton, a master politician of the Left in the Presidential class, understood that the political fallout for the Democrats would be far worse than Democrats themselves imagined if they entered the new year with an enormous tax increase on middle and lower income classes. If no deal had been struck, by late January there would be a clamor to redress the tax rates because fucking Democrats want to be re-elected. They positively had to cast some sort of vote to prevent higher taxes in fact, not just in principle. Anyway, this deal is no disaster, yet to oppose this deal is not to "demand everything without compromise." This deal is 80% compromise and the rest is very average performance. Grade: C+ Not an F, yet certainly not an A. The 112th Congress will have a lot to prove to win people's trust. I wouldn't bet they will succeed.

Posted by: George Orwell at December 16, 2010 11:15 PM (AZGON)

88 Just ran across this on twitter. I laughed at the bullet points! Yeah, there's delusion here, but its not the people watchign FOX News... Study Confirms That Fox News Makes You Stupid http://tinyurl.com/25wfsct Top three bullet points: 91 percent believe the stimulus legislation lost jobs 72 percent believe the health reform law will increase the deficit 72 percent believe the economy is getting worse

Posted by: Rodney C. Johson at December 16, 2010 11:26 PM (G/Eku)

89 This should stimulate one sector of the economy - estate planning.

Posted by: Jean at December 17, 2010 01:46 AM (CPefM)

90 I am still suspicious about Reid's "deal" regarding the budget. It would be no surprise to me if somehow a lot of BS was tucked into the DREAM Act a couple of days before Christmas. The ONLY possible saving grace is that BO wants to get to Hawaii for his vacation. It is exhausting being precedent, doncha know.

Posted by: Museisluse at December 17, 2010 02:24 AM (DTfXb)

91

From the NY Daily News:

Democratic purists can complain all the way to 2012, but President Obama did what he must to save the economy - and himself - from falling into the abyss.
-----

They're delusional.

Posted by: Ed Anger at December 17, 2010 02:41 AM (7+pP9)

92 For my next trick, my boyz and girlz are pushing a refridgerator out a 4th floor window right on the hapless Rethuglikkkans heads. This is so much fun!

Posted by: Whorehouse Harry Reid at December 17, 2010 02:49 AM (H5l1+)

93 Clyde Shelton?

Best of luck ( or "break a leg" ) with your situation.

I've been canvassing for work since my wife quit her job 2 1/2 years ago.
Then, she died.

No luck finding work, wife left me with a huge house, bills, and little money. Future... uncertain.

As far as those clowns ( all of 'em ) in DC and our state Capitol go

Tumbrels
Guillotines
Mobs of offal-throwing peasants...
Some Ass'y re'qrd...

Posted by: backhoe at December 17, 2010 03:10 AM (0bk6W)

94 If the recent election didn't convince Republicans to stop deficit spending, then nothing is going to convince them. And there's no complicated strategy involved. The only way to stop deficit spending is to oppose every friggin' bill that adds to the deficit. Period. Fuck'em. It's third-party time.

Posted by: Bugler at December 17, 2010 03:31 AM (VXBR1)

95 @98: B Plus, Baby!

Posted by: CoolCzech at December 17, 2010 03:38 AM (tJjm/)

96 Estate Planners celebrate.

Posted by: toby928™ at December 17, 2010 03:42 AM (S5YRY)

2 years until the democrats must campaign to raise taxes back to the Clinton Era rates.

2 years of mild stability, but it won't be enough for our Keynesian progressive tax and spend welfare state pro-Union corruptocrats(D). They ache to raise taxes. They ache to take over our freedoms and our liberty.

Posted by: Lemon Kitten at December 17, 2010 04:48 AM (0fzsA)

98 Clyde, I have to agree with you. Morons here are simultaneously arguing that this is the best deal the Republicans can get AND in a stronger position in a few weeks. It is incoherent. If the Democrats failed to extend the tax cuts (something they obviously fear), what possible bargaining position do they have when they are less powerful. As the side bar headline said, Obama would be destroyed if the tax deal didn't pass. Public outrage would be so great that a permanent extension and elimination of the estate tax would be a near certainty.

Posted by: Dr. Heinz Doofensmirtz at December 17, 2010 05:04 AM (Dmtpk)

Tax increases delayed for 2 years. But watch out - the democrtats are itching and salivating to get back to what they do best: class warfare, stealing, and redistributing weath all while destroying the private sector.

Clinton era tax hikes delayed for two years.

That's the meme - pass it on.

Posted by: Keynesian Progressive Communist & Harry Reid's asshole at December 17, 2010 05:38 AM (0fzsA)

100

Other than Warren Buffet and others in Warren's mega billionare camp, who really thinks it's fair to take 40% of any income and give it to the government?

This assumes the government is a better steward than the individual.

That's why democrats want to tax 200K plus, and leave the mega billionaires untouched. Billionaires like Warren Buffet must be taxed at an 80% rate - just to be fair. Democrats know it's not enough, so they want to punish a larger pool.

Posted by: Sock off at December 17, 2010 05:41 AM (0fzsA)

101 I assume all the losers in Brattleboro, Vermont will pay the Clinton tax rate rather then the Bush tax rate. Remember little liberal commies in Bitchboro that you hate Bush and all his policies and want him arrested! Well we are waiting little Obama Cocksuckers from Vermont !!!!!

Posted by: Spanky "The Wonder Hamster" at December 17, 2010 06:14 AM (SZy+Y)

102 Thanks. Anonymous Drivel, for the explaination. I've been purposely not keeping up with politics lately because It makes me too angry.

Posted by: The Drizzle at December 17, 2010 09:06 AM (ysCLj)

103 http://www.typier.com

Posted by: winter boots at December 19, 2010 11:36 PM (N8qPV)

104 <a href="http://www.siktisoktu.com" title="porno">porno</a> izle durma hadÃ½ sende katÃ½l bize yada <a href="http://www.sokacaz.com" title="porno izle">porno izle</a>

Posted by: ecan at December 27, 2010 11:34 AM (p4opg)

105 porno

sikiÃ¾

sikiÃ¾ izle

durmadan katÃ½l bize

Posted by: ecan at December 27, 2010 11:36 AM (p4opg)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

143kb generated in CPU 0.1312, elapsed 0.3416 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.3018 seconds, 233 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.