1 Yeah, Boehner heard the voice of the American people, loud and clear. Boned.

2

Yeah, i read about the add ons in the WSJ a week or so ago.

This bill should be voted down. The Republicans should negotiate their own deal in January when they have the upperhand and make it retroactive to the beginning of the year.

That way, whatever they send to Obama's desk he essentially has to sign. If he doesn't then the Republicans can say he allowed for a tax increase on all americans and specifically a 50% increase on the lowest tax bracket which goes from 10% to 15% if the rates are allowed to change.

Why even negotiate with Obama in the lame duck? I don't get it.

3 Here's another line of attack on the "tax-cut".

/Rush is talking about this right now.

4

Obama has to keep the middle and lower class tax cuts. He has to. No option. He can't let those rates go up.

We all know this. So why not send him a bill in the next congress? Why do it now, when the democrats still have massive majorities in both chambers?

 

5 If the pork is so important break it off and give it a stand alone vote.
Kill the pork or kill the bill.

6 All I want for Christmas is for the progs to scuttle this and take the blame.  GoooooooOOOOOO Pelosi!

7 Barry should pay for this out of his stash.

8 Come on, Ace... you aren't that ignorant. It isn't that pork is used to pass bills that the admin wants... these are democrats, pork is the POINT, the bill is used to pass more pork.

9
This is precisely why the Tea Party movement was started.

10
Who here still supports this?

11 Yeah, think I'll just chill out here for awhile longer...

12 Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at December 14, 2010 02:17 PM (9hSKh) Meh. These were the same guys that gave the Mortgage and CDS biz two thumbs up before ti fell apart. they wouldn't know a risk if it tied them up, gagged them, and threw 'em in the trunk of a car.

13
All the Republicans had to was stand firm on extending the tax cuts AND propose an additional tax cut for middle-income bracket earners.

That's all. It would've put Obama and the Democrats in a box.

14

I am conflicted on the entire bill. Ethenol subsidies do supposedly reduce the price of gas since most states have a mandate that ethenol be added. I don't have a clues how much getting rid of the subsidy would cost us, maybe nothing if we allowed importation from Brazil. Then it would only cost jobs.

I agree with the income tax cuts being extended but I would have gotten rid of some of the high end deductions maybe that go along with it.

On the other hand waiting until the new congress takes over would be ok with me as well. I am just not sure that the slim filibuster ability that we have now would hold up if tested.

15 I don't like the idea of Congress playing chicken with my personal finances. 

16 Posted by: Soothsayer for RNC Chair at December 14, 2010 02:26 PM (uFokq) Yeah, but you can't put the Dems and the Tea Party in a box at the same time; being in GOP leadership means making tough decisions...

17 NO DEAL!  Republicans should  turn down this shit sandwich.

_{But they won't.}

18
....being in GOP leadership means making tough decisions...

I understand. The Republicans in Congress go to great efforts to be mediocre public servants.

19
1. It's the best we can do!
2. It's better than letting the tax rates increase!
3. We have to do something, harumph!

20 Posted by: robtr at December 14, 2010 02:27 PM (hVDig) The price reduction is an illusion caused by transfer of cost from market participants to taxpayers. Classic "Forgotten Man" scenario. You can't talk about the supposedly lower price without including who is paying for the difference. And in the end, it is no matter as you are distorting the market anyway. When the subsidy/regulation ends, the market will find the natural equilibrium.

21 Unprecedented?

22 15 I don't like the idea of Congress playing chicken with my personal finances. 

Posted by: Y-not at December 14, 2010 02:27 PM (IDL9N)

YES.  Thank you, Y-not.  I've been trying to think how best to phrase my qualms about this whole thing, and that's the perfect summation.

23 I'm so sick of this shit I could croak, but I won't give them that satisfaction.
 
Still, this is a done deal unless the House goes for even more lard. Then it would have to go back to the spineless Senate for another vote.

24

I heard an econ guy from the Heritage Foundation this morning who talked about this mess but also busted on Boehner for saying (Boehner) would cut non-defense, non-entitlement, non-blah, blah, blah areas, to which the speaker said, "That leaves 12% of the budget from which he says he's going to cut $100 million." 

The speaker went on to say that if entitlements aren't reined in, and soon, that a child born in 2010 would have a taxable income of 63% and 88% of a small business to keep entitlements flowing.

25

Please....PLEASE....FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, PLEASE....

Quit calling them tax cuts.

26
Can you imagine the political fallout if the Democrats raised taxes in this economy?

The stupid Republicans sure can't.

27 This is why the Democrats bleating about the rate extension was a ploy and the GOP bit. We have had retroactive tax situations before and the country didn't collapse. The second pork was loaded on, the GOP should have walked away- now they look like compliant chumps

28 3. We have to do something, harumph! Posted by: Soothsayer for RNC Chair at December 14, 2010 02:31 PM (uFokq)

29 This tax deal is not halal.

30 and subsidies for Virgin Islands rum. Well, let's not be too hasty. Some things need subsidizing.

31 Posted by: Soothsayer for RNC Chair at December 14, 2010 02:32 PM (uFokq) Well, what do you expect from the Nazi-convention holders afraid of Michael Steele, cuz... they... you know - elected him [BUY HIS BOOK!!!!!111!!!]...

32 You can't talk about the supposedly lower price without including who is paying for the difference. And in the end, it is no matter as you are distorting the market anyway. When the subsidy/regulation ends, the market will find the natural equilibrium.

Posted by: alexthedude at December 14, 2010 02:31 PM (NS5S0)

Well no one is paying for any of this now. We are borrowing it at very low interest rates for the time being so the immediate effect is a stimulus. How long that lasts is anybodies guess.

33 Oh - it's halal alright. That's the PROBLEM.

34

Come one.... NASCAR and RUM????

Heck fire dere boys, this bill has sumthin for everyone...

Just add in somthing for Guns and you'll have the trifecta!

 

35 I'd vote against this. Lets pass a clean Tax Bill retroactively in January

36 All the Republicans had to was stand firm on extending the tax cuts AND propose an additional tax cut for middle-income bracket earners.

That's all. It would've put Obama and the Democrats in a box.

Nobody puts Bambi in a corner...

37 Well we can't leave the decision on how to spend money up to the American people.

38 Posted by: robtr at December 14, 2010 02:35 PM (hVDig) Public debt at the expense of private capital formation in a depressed economy is not stimulative. Paying it back in the future is not stimulative. Distorting the grain and fuel markets is not stimulative.

39
holy shit, I just thought of something else...

I'll bet myleftnut_^tm that this bill is now over 1000 pages long.

Any takers?

I didn't think so.

40 Right. Let's wait until next year, when we still have a Democrat Senate and President to deal with, not to mention all the new so-called "conservatives" who are only now getting a taste of all the wonderful things they can do with a no-limit checkbook.

We're not boned...we're fucked.

41 Hey Sooth - we saw what happened to Denis Leary. Forget it.

42 THIS !
IS !
D.C.!

43 Republicans don't get it.  Maybe they really do want a third party. 

44 Oh, and I think the current bill that has a small part of itself devoted to maintaining current tax rates should be shot the hell down, in flames.

Bring a keep-the-tax-rates-where-they-are bill up with no added shit, and I'd be all for it.

45

5 If the pork is so important break it off and give it a stand alone vote.

Republicans can't.  They can only vote up-or-down on what the Democrats send to them.  In January, they can send a clean bill through because they have the House.  But either Pelosi or Reid has control over what hits their respective house's floor.

I also think the ethanol subsidies are intended to get enough Rs on board for add-ons in general so that the Dem add-ons stay attached too.  No ethanol stuff and there would be no motivation not to hold out for a clean bill.

46 We need to jam it with this much pork?

That's what she said.

47 Scrib - right now, no one is getting a taste of anything. they haven't taken office yet and are being given the runaround by the current office-holders. Yeah, at a certain point you have to stop and say no. I understand your frustration, but reps need to be able to pass these real life tests or be refused office.

48 holy shit, I just thought of something else...

I'll bet myleftnut_^tm that this bill is now over 1000 pages long.

1000 pages... bah! But were they able to get through the whole thing without using the letter "e"?

49 Maybe that is why they call them "tax cuts" instead of "tax rates"...

50 Public debt at the expense of private capital formation in a depressed economy is not stimulative.

Paying it back in the future is not stimulative.

Distorting the grain and fuel markets is not stimulative.

Posted by: alexthedude at December 14, 2010 02:37 PM (NS5S0)

I disagree, the money they are talking about in this case is coming from overseas not at the expense of private capital formation, in fact it increases private capital by letting taxpayers keep their money while the government borrows to pay their bills. Like I said in the immediate short term it's stimulative. That could all change next year if bond rates go up.

I agree about the grain prices, I am not sure how much money they are talking about but it all should end. If gas prices go up they go up.

51 The people in Washington are too much in love with money to balk at things like subsidies and so on.  Doesn't matter, for the most part, if they're Dems or Reps.

The Reps will vote for this because otherwise the media will say they're mean, and that's the one thing they are most concerned about. 

52 Why even negotiate with Obama in the lame duck? I don't get it.

Likely because a number of the pubbies are on board with a lot of the crap squeezing through and would like the responsibility deflected. Either that or party of stupid.

53 Speaking of ...

The country with the highest corporate tax rate in the world might
go nuts and cut them.

"Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan on Monday proposed cutting the nation's 40% corporate tax rate by five percentage points from the fiscal year beginning in April, ending weeks of debate among ministers over the scale of the cut as the government seeks to boost the country's sluggish growth."

54
Yes, the Republicans can't help themselves.

And we have Hal fucking Rogers coming in as the new Appropriations chairman.

55 "Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan on Monday proposed cutting the nation's 40% corporate tax rate by five percentage points from the fiscal year beginning in April

We're #1!  We're #1!

56 If $5 billion is so inconsequential to these people, I suggest they send that amount to my local school district, which now relies on $10 donations from parents to buy toner, paper and white boards for the classrooms. But really, all I care about is stopping the Dream Act.

57 No, we don't. Obama needs this deal as much as the Republicans want it.

A lot of us have been saying this for days. It is too late now. The Senate Repubs have folded like a cheap dime store suit.

The House commies will approve it despite the all the MFM media hype about the phony 54.

In the end the tax payer, and the country, is screwed again.

But what the hell, what's another billion dollars worth of pork and welfare.

58 Posted by: robtr at December 14, 2010 02:45 PM (hVDig) Still forgetting about the Forgotten Man and opportunity cost. The only reason the gov gets such a "deal" on the debt is because it can force collection of taxes, the same way it forces the production and use of ethanol from grain in fuels. The issuance of debt at any rate deprives private corporations of capital formation via debt and equity instruments. Same forces that distort the grain markets distort the capital markets. US grain prices affect the market in Mexico, and Chinese and foreign bond public bond purchases affect domestic capital markets. Same-same.

59 Ace, you have to be against all subsidies, not just the hated subsidy of the moment. Rest assured, ethanol can survive on it's own with DDG's as an amazing byproduct, though certainly not without some pain, but wind and solar are dead in the water without Uncle Sam's deep pockets. Just look at an FPL annual report on their wind investments = $0 without a whole lotta help. I am working on a subsidy wheel, like the one they did showing parity in the NFL a few weeks back, and I think it will amaze people how the people that benefit from these subsidies gain a net of zero in relationship to all of the other subsidies that are handed out. So just cut them all and let the people keep their money, or the states for that matter. No handouts period.

60 I really would like to shove a corn cob up the ass of every ethanol lobbyist in the country - unfortunately they would probably enjoy it.

61 I'm tellin ya, the only way to get this thing ratified is to attach the Second Amendment. Don't worry, we'll nullify it later in the Supreme Court.

62
Just chalk it up to yet another...

hill not worth dying for.

Right?

63

The GOP would like this bill to pass now because they can blame Donks for its suckitude. In January they'd have to answer to us for it, and they might not get to load it up with so much suck.

64 Posted by: alexthedude at December 14, 2010 02:43 PM

In a literal way, you're right, Alex.

But if I knew I'd have a virtually unlimited checkbook next month, I'd be out pricing Porsche Turbos right now....

And look at the wonderful example the worthless Repub members of the current royalist class are setting for them. "gosh, I think we really do need earmarks...my constituents need this wonderful highway project that they never needed before...why is there no sports stadium named after me?"

We have over 500 taxpayer-supported Bernie Madoffs in D.C. right now. How many more do we tolerate before the pitchforks, tar and feathers come out?

65 Right?
Posted by: Soothsayer for RNC Chair at December 14, 2010 02:56 PM

As far as I'm concerned, this is a hill worth Congress dying for....

66 The first paragraph in this article is NOT correct.

Since House Democrats rejected the tax compromise that President Obama and GOP leaders negotiated last week, there has been a mad scramble to renegotiate the deal. Liberals are seeking an increase in the death tax rate, and partisans on both sides of the aisle are festooning the bill with "Christmas tree" provisions that look suspiciously like discredited earmarks.

House Dems did NOT reject the damn bill. 54 loud mouths, in a pre-planned exercise said they would not vote to bring it to the floor. That did NOT prevent the other Dems from bringing it up to vote or from approving it. There were still enough votes there.

Why is the MFM and supposed "conservatives" carrying the water for these commie bastards?

67 This makes no sense if you assume the Republicans' want to reduce spending and pork. 

hinthint

68 Wait until January and make the tax cuts retroactive. How hard is that?

69 Wait until January and make the tax cuts retroactive. How hard is that?

Too late now. They voted for cloture yesterday. The Dems can write their own ticket now and there is NOTHING the Repubs can do about it.

NOT.A.DAMN.THING

70 Same-same.

Posted by: alexthedude at December 14, 2010 02:54 PM (NS5S0)

Yeah long term no question about it. Right now corporations are sitting on cash of their own and not wanting to borrow any. The few IPO's that are issued seem to do ok. The difference between your position and mine is that you are talking long term in a normal economy and I am talking short term in a recession.

Your alternative it seems would be to let taxes go up on everyone and cancel the unemployment benefits and the subsidy which are the only two spending portions of this bill.

We don't yet have control of the house so we can't introduce our own bill cutting spending yet. Right now the only way to decrease debt is increase taxes until next January. 

71 Sacrifice.

It's time.

This bill must die.  Personal finances be damned.  Any other outcome reinforces the status quo.

72
It's a good thing we avoided all those nasty negative 'optics' if the Republicans refused to extend unemployment benefits.

The Republicans are heroes, now! Even Obama is praising them for being a friend to the American worker.

/nods

73 Is there any way to stop this?  Seriously?  Did Tea Party movement die on 11/3?

74
We must stop worrying about the politics, people.

We must start standing on principle.

75
And by 'we,' I mean the jellyfish Republicans in Congress.

76 How long until word of our smashing Nov 2nd victory reaches our leaders? Now is not the time to surrender.

77

Posted by: Soothsayer for RNC Chair at December 14, 2010 03:07 PM (uFokq)

If a Democrat, especially Obama, praises you, you're probably doing something wrong.

78 Vic - they can refuse to support a conference committee if there are any differences or just fail to include the port in actual appropriation bill.

79
It was sarcasm, my good man.

The Republicans, as usual, are getting their cooperation jammed right back up their asses by the Democrats.

Obama makes a deal with the Republicans, one day, and the next day comes out saying the Republicans hate poor people and love the rich people.

80

Yeah long term no question about it. Right now corporations are sitting on cash of their own and not wanting to borrow any. Posted by: robtr

Highly debatable.

"Put simply, there is a lot of apparent "cash on the sidelines" because the government and many corporations have issued enormous quantities of new debt, often with short maturities, while other corporations have purchased it. It is an equilibrium. The assets that are held in the right hand represent debt that is owed by the left. You cannot call that pile of short-term marketable securities an asset without calling it a liability. The cash on the sidelines is evidence of debt incurred to fund economic activity that is already in the past. It will remain "on the sidelines" until the debt is retired. The government debt has been issued to finance deficit spending. At the same time, a great deal of corporate debt has been issued over the past year apparently as a pre-emptive measure against the possibility of the capital markets freezing up again."

81
Not long after No Child... was passed, Ted Kennedy himself came out and took a big shit on the bill  (he sponsored) and on President Bush.

82 Scrib, Few things: 1.) I understand the revolutionary fervor, however, we are dealing with some real shift characters so i would advice ditching the farm implements and recommend the Capitol switchboard instead. 2.) The Tea Party and indies just put 63 fresh ham-hocks in Congress. That is ~14.5% of the entire House, and 26% of the new GOP majority. Now, that means that at least 1/4 of the new majority hasn't had a chance to do anything other than get acclimated, get an office, get a staff, and get the shaft from the guys already there. I would hope you would consider giving the fresh meat at least the opportunity to screw up before throwing them overboard. 3.) No matter what happens, we need to start again to do this in 2012 to Dems, recalcitrant GOP fogies, and new guys that cave. This is the reality, but outside of starting a fund to primary Boehner and the retread committee chairs, we don't have enough info to throw the new guys overboard - yet.

83 What's the problem with the economy? Things are great here in Tampa. And the credit card still works just fine!1!1!1!1!1!1!!! Thanks, GOPers!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1

84 Hell the Dems locked them out of committee meetings on healthscam. That will not stop it.

The only way it can be stopped now is for the House to add enough amendments to it to require the Senate to "re-approve it" and possibly they can invoke cloture for that, not sure. In any event, all it would take for the Dems then is send it back to the House to approve it as it was.

There may be some parliamentary trick, but if there is I sure as hell don't know what it is. When you are in the minority and you give up cloture you are then at their mercy. The assholes who did that had to know what they were doing.

85 10
Who here still supports this?

Posted by: Soothsayer for RNC Chair at December 14, 2010 02:24 PM (uFokq)

I didn't support this shit to begin with. Know what the republicans should have done? CUT THE TAX RATES. Force Toonces to eat the tax increase. Raise bloody hell over the amount of complete bullshit pork that was going to be thrown in it to get squish RINOs and progs on board. But noooooooo, we get Boehner bawling his fucking eyes out on  60 minutes instead of him sticking it to the out of control administration.

86 Hell, we need to cross over the aisle and make some more damn deals with Obama.

How many times do these idiots have to get burned before they know it is lose-lose.

Or is it that they are just using that as an excuse to to get the pork they want as well?  As Jack Napier said:

Look out boys, we been ratted out here.

87 Ot: Do any of you guys know how the obamacare decision yesterday will uphold in the 4th circuit? How is the 4th circuit? Will it hold? Ahhh

88

(knock-knock-knock)

Excuse me.  Esteemed members of both houses of Congress of both parties.

Perhaps you fuckers didn't get the memo last November.

89

and subsidies for Virgin Islands rum.

 

Nothing says fiscal responsibility like Virgin Islands rum

90 Republicans don't get it. Maybe they really do want a third party.

If there's a plot afoot, it's to keep an actual opposition coalition from forming.

I mean, that plot exists, and it's goin' great. Victory is its. No amount of voting works—at all. And it never will. Our bone-ment is utter and endless.

But I don't know if the GOP has been in on it, or if they're really the scrap-chasing chumps they act like. I'd prefer to think they're evil, because being owned by idiots is embarrassing, but...eh.

91
buh-duh-bee buh-duh-bee buh-duh-bee THAT'S ALL FOLKS

92

Z Street IRS Shakedown Update

And this is a total crock of shit btw.

_{(warning - link to Politico)}

93 Posted by: robtr at December 14, 2010 03:05 PM (hVDig) IN addition to goldbrickers comment: Yes, I would allow tax rates to expire and go to the previously mandated higher levels. I would not pass a Unemployment Benefit that is not offset by cuts elsewhere. I would not take part in any compromise, and would stay on the sidelines until the tax and benefit issues we handled separately. What would this accomplish? 1) I would have my own proposals ready to go now, and in January: - Unemployment Benefits that decrease to 0 at week 100 for current participants and at week 52 for new participant; the cost of this program is funded by redirecting current stimulus funds. - ACTUAL TAX CUTS, for everyone that makes under $1,000,000. - Two bills for a tax rate for those that make $1,000,000 to $1,000,000,000: One that lowers rates from the Bush deal and removes subsidies and deductions. One that RAISES RATES and removes subsidies and deductions. This bill I call "The Barack Hussein Obama Fairness Tax Bill on Millionaires." - Two bills for a tax rate for those that make over $1,000,000,000 One that lowers rates from the Bush deal and removes subsides and deductions. One that RAISES RATES and removes subsidies and deductions. This bill I call "The Barack Hussein Obama Fairness Tax Bill on the Billionaires." Offset the cuts with the remainder of the stimulus spending. Bring the tax hike bills up first, watch the Dems implode. You are welcome.

94

None of this added crap had to be included in this bill, but there are as many Repubs that like it as there are dems.   Kristi Noem came out and lauded the ethanol subsidy as something that was great for WI and much needed to help her 'great state'.   I fully expect there will be some of the new congresscritters that may stand firm on some of this pig fat, but there will be just as many that will be happy to include it when the new House takes over.

We can all sit here on the interwebs and bitch & complain, but how many of you are storming the phones and emails of your congresscritters to let them know how you truly feel.   I was pissed before November, but I am more pissed, now, because I don't see any difference in their attitudes, and don't expect to see much change in January.  

We are boned, and even though it may be a slower boning than before it is still a butt effing.

95 I love this deal.

Th-Th-Th-Th-Th-... That's all, folks.

96
but the bill is growing as we speak, no?

97

We do not have to play the shakedown game and pay him off in billions to get him to do what he is already forced to do.

But maybe, just maybe, we WANT to

98 Sorry, stopped counting the items. Also - if you pass the tax cuts for the people that actually pay the majority of our taxes - these are offset by actual spending cuts. Across the board if necessary for the leadership that lacks spine to call programs out.

99 #88  Let's hope they pull Judge Niemeyer in the Fourth Circuit. 

100 I think ethanol sucks. I left the east coast getting a solid 30 mpg, and by the time I was in the mid west I had to use that ethanol crap. I got 20 mpg on that garbage, so where the fuck is the savings?

101 Kill the pork and kill the bill and....I better stop there.

102 "Historically," wrote the senators, "the government has helped a product compete in one of three ways: Subsidize it, protect it from competition or require its use...."

Two out of three ain't bad, yo...

103

Oh and didyasee that Holder and Sebelius wrote a piece in WaPo today and they've now referring to the 'individual mandate' provision in the HC bill as 'individual responsibility'?

It gets more f'ng dumb by the day.....

104  'individual mandate' provision in the HC bill as 'individual responsibility'

And if you fail in that responsibility, you have the individual freedom to be thrown in jail.

105

- ACTUAL TAX CUTS, for everyone that makes under $1,000,000.

That portion of your plan adds at least $3.5 Trillion to the debt over 10 years. Even if you take all the income of the billionaires you don't cover the cost. Of course the billionaires would find someplace else to make money in the meantime.

106 And this tweet sums it up nicely

107

Anybody paying attention to the Omnibus bill that was just released, and to be voted on before Saturday, or the governmeny shuts down?   1900+ pages of out of control spending that the dems want passed.   Much of it having nothing to do with funding the government, and much to do with funding of dem bills that could not get passed any other way.

I swear I try not to have hate in my heart, but it is a concerted effort every damn day to avoid it, and I am not succeeding.

108 Kristi Noem came out and lauded the ethanol subsidy as something that was great for WI and much needed to help her 'great state'.

She's from North Dakota....

109  can this be true?  cure for aids:  http://tinyurl.com/27zkpmt

110

B'zrk, you mean "gasohol," don't you? E-85? Very little gasoline "sold as a motor fuel" is not 10% ethanol. Your drop in MPG sounds about right for changing from 10 to 85. A 20% drop is pretty typical. But why worry?

You can get more efficiency from alcohol than we are seeing, but you need a near-suicidal blower boost rate, or Offenhauser-like compression ratios.

111 Heather Radish, South Dakota.

112 This is a HORRIBLE tax/spending bill. It won't really help the economy as it is not in any way a 'stimulus'. On the tax and expenditure front it basically just maintains a failing system, and ADDS to the deficit and debt in the process. The 'new' thing is the payroll tax reduction for ONE YEAR. Big deal. The grand historical mistake that the GOP is making is believing that these un-affordable supply side debts will do anything to correct the systemic problems of the economy. Conservatives appear to believe that it will all be good when taxes are cut. Not this time. Not a hope. When this doesn't work and the debt problem reaches even worse levels, the GOP and not Obama will wear ALL the problems. As frankly it should. It's STUPID. After an election which supposedly pointed to a new way forward, we get this horrible mess,which is just same-o, same-o spend as if you actually had it. It's popular because it's a candy store, and the sheeple are frankly not too bright. As another article recently stated, the sheeple want cuts, but they want their entitlements left intact. They want magic cuts. This is just peachy for them. What is bad now will be much worse later and this horrible legislation will be part of the reason. This is like watching a train wreck in very slow motion.

113 I understand the revolutionary fervor, however, we are dealing with some real shift characters so i would advice ditching the farm implements and recommend the Capitol switchboard instead.

Yeah...that's been working so well up to now.

114 Can someone answer my question? I'm getting a heart attack here geez, ;]. Do any of you guys know how the obamacare decision yesterday will uphold in the 4th circuit? How is the 4th circuit? Will it hold? Ahhh

115

That portion of your plan adds at least $3.5 Trillion to the debt over 10 years. Posted by: robtr

Wrong. Spending adds to the debt, not straight line assumptions of taxes.

116 Posted by: robtr at December 14, 2010 03:38 PM (hVDig) Wow, so we only have to cut $350 Billion from the budget to make that happen? That's doable. make it so!

117

cure for aids

Umm, we already have a 'cure'.

It's called not having unprotected sex with strangers  and not sharing needles.

Ta da!

Do I get a red ribbon? No? That's okay. I don't want it anyway. 

118

All bills should be no more than 4 sentences long. 
No, make that 3 and simple ones at that.

119 Mmmmmm. Bacon.

120 Even if you take all the income of the billionaires you don't cover the cost.

Aaagh, this friggin' phrasing again. Tax cuts aren't a "cost". Government does not have to "pay for" tax cuts. Tax cuts which result in less government revenue (which not all do) simply lower government revenue. Government can then do what every other organization on the planet does when facing lower revenue - cut spending.

121 That's doable.

make it so!

Posted by: alexthedude at December 14, 2010 03:44 PM (NS5S0)

I agree with you there, it's not only doable it should be mandatory.

122 Look, this makes perfect sense to me.  The other day my hubby and I had a wrestling match to figure out who would 'service' whom.  Needless to say I beat him royally. 

Because I won, I agreed to service him twice and make him bacon everyday for a week, before he serviced me.

Then I agreed just to let him fall asleep immediately after I serviced him.

One day I am going to insist he does what I want because I did win, but not today. My hubby is sleeping.

/snark

123

Posted by: Flapjackmaka

Well first off, relax.

Whatever happends in the Fourth, it could  have a different outcome in the 6th. Or the 11th. There are over 15 judges in the 6th COA so there's no way to know who will hear it. But ten of the 16 are Reagan or Bush appointees.

Only SCOTUS matters.

124

That portion of your plan adds at least $3.5 Trillion to the debt over 10 years. Even if you take all the income of the billionaires you don't cover the cost. Of course the billionaires would find someplace else to make money in the meantime.

Posted by: robtr at December 14, 2010 03:38 PM (hVDig)

You know what, I am sick of this false argument.    Taxes are revenue to fund government spending.   Period. 

It does not add to the damn debt.  No way.   No how.   Not ever.    Spending adds to the debt.    Lower the effing spending, and reduce the debt.   Period.

Allowing me to keep more of my money is not a gift from the damn government.   It is not their money.   It is mine.    Period.

125 Completely SN, but this is embarrassing at this point.  How do you pronounce "gnocchi?"  I see it in the sidebar and for the umpteenth time I realize I have absolutely no idea of its correct pronunciation.  Is it "No-chi?"  "Guh-no-chi?"  I know I could open a dictionary, but I'm a lazy member of the entitlement generation. 

126 She's from North Dakota....

Posted by: HeatherRadish at December 14, 2010 03:41 PM (4ucxv)

Yeah, sorry, South Dakota.   Not sure why I have WI on the brain this morning.   

127 Posted by: robtr at December 14, 2010 03:47 PM (hVDig) "it," what?

128

NO-CHI (hard 'c', not "ch")

129
nock-ee

130 Posted by: MWR at December 14, 2010 03:51 PM (4df7R)

Nyokee.

But I usually just point and grunt.

131

Or NO-KEY if that makes more sense

132
or you can try to be italian and say...

nyok-ee

133

THANK YOU, LACEY.

Momma:  That allegory was perfect.  Disturbingly perfect, since I now have this horrible image of Boehner wrestling with Obama...

134 When are we going to stop promoting the blatant lie that tax cuts ARE A FUCKING COST?

Spending is a cost.


THAT'S IT.

135

jesus drudge needs to put up some new pictures.

that one of Hillary looking like ass is bad enough but scroll down and you'll see Rahm and his missing middle finger.

ick.

136 so i would advice ditching the farm implements and recommend the Capitol switchboard instead.

Grassley might understand farm implements. Maybe. 

137 How do you pronounce "gnocchi?

The YouTubes have everything!

138

It does not add to the damn debt.  No way.   No how.   Not ever.    Spending adds to the debt.    Lower the effing spending, and reduce the debt.   Period.

Allowing me to keep more of my money is not a gift from the damn government.   It is not their money.   It is mine.    Period.

Posted by: Steph at December 14, 2010 03:49 PM (kOSds)

Oh give me  a break and hold your outrage until you read the whole argument we've having. We were talking about what we could do right now to reduce the debt, not next january. Since we don't have any power right now and can't even bring a bill to the floor the only thing we can do is let the tax cut extensions expire and in the process cancel out the unemployment extentions and subsidies.

139

Edit:  Thank you everyone!  

I sound like Tiny Tim. 

Eh, 'tis the season.  ^_^

140 since I now have this horrible image of Boehner wrestling with Obama...

No wonder he cries.

141 What Reublicans in both houses of congress should be doing now is dragging their feet using every possible trick there is to drag out legislation such that nothing else passes for the rest of the "lame duck meeting of communists".

They need to hide in bathrooms and offices for quorum calls and make the Dems round them up. Do every damn thing.

No more shit from these bastards.

142 For the record, it sounds like mama pronounces gnocchi nookie......

143
You know how to pronounce quiche, right?

It's pronounced homo.

144  Since we don't have any power right now and can't even bring a bill to the floor the only thing we can do is let the tax cut extensions expire and in the process cancel out the unemployment extentions and subsidies.

Posted by: robtr at December 14, 2010 03:55 PM (hVDig)

...adds at least $3.5 Trillion to the debt...

Is that not what you wrote?   That was what I was addressing.   Nothing else.

145 How do you pronounce "gnocchi?" "Pizza."

146 Remember that McConnell was against cutting out earmarks in the next Congress.   He loves him some pork.

147

This bill should be voted down. The Republicans should negotiate their own deal in January when they have the upperhand and make it retroactive to the beginning of the year.

Posted by: Ben at December 14, 2010 02:16 PM (wuv1c)

The one thing that can't be undone retroactively is the tax sales that investors will have to engage in if there is no deal in December.  It would be insane to assume that Congress and the President are 100 percent certain to preserve the capital gains tax rates if they have to negotiate a new deal in January, so there will be a massive wave of selling to lock in current tax rates on capital gains.  And even if Congress and Obama do come to an agreement in January to roll back capital gains tax rates, the tax sales can't be unwound.

148 How do you pronounce "gnocchi?"


spätzle

149

'individual mandate' provision in the HC bill as 'individual responsibility'

And if you fail in that responsibility, you have the individual freedom to be thrown in jail.

It's not "jail" you wingnut it's an 'individual zone of free movement', within which you can move about as freely as you wish.

150

...adds at least $3.5 Trillion to the debt...

Is that not what you wrote?   That was what I was addressing.   Nothing else.

Posted by: Steph at December 14, 2010 03:58 PM (kOSds)

Yeah it was, in response to alexthedude's plan to give everyone a tax cut that makes under $1 Million. No matter how you would like to believe otherwise if you cut the income of the government and don't cut spending you increase the debt.

There is the argument that lower taxes=higher gdp which I agree with except in this case we already have the tax cuts.

151

Whatever happends in the Fourth, it could  have a different outcome in the 6th. Or the 11th. There are over 15 judges in the 6th COA so there's no way to know who will hear it. But ten of the 16 are Reagan or Bush appointees.

-------------

True but they have already 2 rulings on their side to our one except this ruling had a big supporter on the con mandate side (Virginia). If Vinson in Florida rules con-mandate ( he is a reagan appointee), the it's tied. I'm just nervous because circut courts cover more than district courts. I'm relatively new in politics (1.5 years) so i dont know much on Kennedy. But will he have the balls to say no?

152 "14 I am conflicted on the entire bill. Ethenol subsidies do supposedly reduce the price of gas..." No. Subsidies increase the price of gas. Ethanol only benefits those in the ethanol industry. They truck it into California, in diesel trucks. How the hell does that reduce pollution or costs? If ethanol is so fricking good, how about free stills for every family so we can make our own ethanol. They'd have to be solar-powered in California but whatever. In my dreams, this is where the GOP draws the line and says: enough: we will only vote for the tax rate extension as a stand-alone bill, period. If the pork in the bill is so important, split it off into another bill. Like I say, this will happen in my dreams. With Rosario Dawson as leader of the free world... o wait, those are my other dreams...

153 How do you pronounce "gnocchi?"


Dumplin'

154 151 Mitch

155 You can have all the ethanol stills you want as long as you:

Get all the applicable construction permits paying all the applicable fees

Comply with all codes and standards in construction and have it inspected by a code enforcer for a fee

Get all the applicable State, County, and Federal licenses for operation, paying the applicable fee.

And then pay all of the applicable taxes on said ethanol after you make it.

Then you can start all the processes over again with even more restrictions if you want to sell any of it.

Ever wonder why so many people engage in bootlegging?

156

"""B'zrk, you mean "gasohol," don't you? E-85? Very little gasoline "sold as a motor fuel" is not 10% ethanol. Your drop in MPG sounds about right for changing from 10 to 85. A 20% drop is pretty typical. But why worry?

You can get more efficiency from alcohol than we are seeing, but you need a near-suicidal blower boost rate, or Offenhauser-like compression ratios."""

I was pretty sure it was ethanol, because I remember seeing the sticker on the pump and thinking wtf. I'm not sure if we had that stuff out here at the time, because I never saw that sticker before, but who knows. The station I got it at was in Indiana on the major highway heading north up to chicago. All I know is that the MPGs fell through the floor bad.

157 So basically, this tax deal fiasco is the combined porked up efforts of the Obamacrats and GOP LOSERSHIP. 

158 But will he have the balls to say no?

Posted by: Flapjackmaka at December 14, 2010 04:06 PM (c5RQr)

It really does not matter how many courts are on one side, or the other, as long as at least 2 courts disagree.

Thats all the Supremes need to get involved... Heck, one of the best things someone could do is Sue in a STATES Court, and take it to that STATES Supreme Court...

Once the Supremes are involved, it really does not matter what ny of the lower courts say.... they will be forced to decide this one...

159 151 Mitch

Posted by: Jean at December 14, 2010 04:13 PM (wgkZv)

I'm pretty sure that was a play on the won calling Mitch 'Mike' yesterday.

160 Hey, looks like some of the Republicans are reading my comments on this blog. At least as far as it applies to the new BS Budget Bill:

From Fox

Devolving into pandemonium, a source said "all hell is breaking loose" ahead of a Republican policy lunch in which Sens. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Jim DeMint of South Carolina were expected to insist the omnibus bill be read in its entirety by the clerk on the Senate floor before a vote is held.

161 to quote Churchill again, The length of the report defends itself from being read.

162

Hmmm.... how's about a Constitutional Amendment, saying that no Law can be passed which is longer than then the Constitution?

163

Oh come on, it would be silly to the point of stupid to blow a deal like this over something like a one year extension of a $5 billion ethanol tax credit.

Here we have Rush Limbaugh and Bernie Sanders both wanting to kill a deal that would stop tax increases for most Americans. A conservative talk radio guy and a Socialist on one side and 69% of the American people on the other.

This deal, just like everything else in politics is far from perfect, but if they blow this now there is no gaurantee that Republicans can retroactively pass something better in a month. In fact a lot of Democrats would just as soon see those taxes go up and Obama and Reid will still be there in January.

Sometimes people at the extreme edges of the political spectrum tend to get immersed in details of all this, whereas average people want results, they don't want grandstanding and speeches, they want the tax cuts extended.

164

"Historically," wrote the senators, "the government has helped a product compete in one of three ways: Subsidize it, protect it from competition or require its use. We understand that ethanol may be the only product receiving all three forms of support from the U.S. government at this time."

 

What about big Pharma? They are protected from foreign competition, government buys drugs not only for the poor and the elderly but the military as well, and big Pharma receive all sorts of grants and subsidies for research? And so far as I know this stuff is not free to the rest of us. In fact we are still paying relatively high prices for basic vaccines in spite of the fact that they have existed for many years.

165
 Put me some knowledge here, please. If this bill in it's present form is so unpalatable, why not put the tax extension bill as stand alone legislation? If this is feasible, then why not a budget as the same? Strikes me you could defeat the pork easily thus.

166 any time they refer to a bill as a "package", you know its a flaming pile of crap. what was so wrong with a simple bill on taxes?

167

10
Who here still supports this?

 

Well, a couple of days ago, Gabriel Malor still did.  He didn't seem to think too highly of commenters who didn't.

Maybe ace will send him the memo...

168 We do not have to play the shakedown game and pay him off in billions to get him to do what he is already forced to do.

Unfortunately, the Republican Party is likely to play that game. They're not called the Stupid Party for nothing, ya know.

169 Ace, you're Ok.  TTFN.

170 Glad to see some new voices on this one. Time to raise hell. The Republican establishment is pushing more spending and the Unicorn Driven Economy again. Republicans need only say they will go no farther than the "compromise" reached with Obama. That was the endpoint, not a starting point for the Democrats to add goodies to the bill. I didn't like the original compromise but I can live with it. What it has become is nothing more than an insult to everyone who voted Republican this year. A BIG EFFING INSULT. Kill the bill.

171 I emailed my senators and rep saying I agreed with the deal at first, though I didn't like it, but now they should hold to Biden's statement 'Take it or Leave it.'  They have added pork to the deal so it is no longer the deal that was agreed to. Vote No unless they revert back to the original deal.

172 No, we don't. Obama needs this deal as much as the Republicans want it. We do not have to play the shakedown game and pay him off in billions to get him to do what he is already forced to do. Attaguy Ace. Why are Drew and Gabe so big on this porkfezt?

173 a couple of days ago, Gabriel Malor still did.

You could fit what Gabe knows about economist into a thimble...

174 Yep, the problem with this bill is those damn porky Democrats and all their damn pork. Damn sure is.

175 What about thinkingst?

176 Chuck's right. I'm really gettin' sick of these porky Democrats and all their damn pork. All I ever see out of these Democrat porkers is porkety-pork-pork. It's enough to make an honest man cuss like a mutherfucker.

177 Columnist Hugh Hewitt says John Boehner has a fundamental choice to make even before he becomes speaker. "He can in good conscience declare that the deal he agreed to has been buried under a mountain of pork and that, upon further reflection, he ought not to have gone along with it in the first place." Or he can choose to allow the old Washington games to continue. If he chooses the latter, expect some real political blowback from Americans of all political persuasions in the coming days.

If you don't shape the fuck up, right now Mister, I'll give you something to cry about...