ABC story and Fox's article.
It's all very careful and wrapped in "only if democrats agree to cut even more" and similar things but it does look like Republicans are slowly coming back from being the party of NO.
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Republicans ready to raise taxes.
Republicans ready to raise taxes.Follow
In a sense, they don't have much choice. The tax cuts are expiring and they can either sign on let some of them increase or do nothing and let all of them increase.
Edited, Nov 26th 2012 11:31am by Jophiel
Fox Story wrote:
Indiana Democratic Sen. **** Durbin, on the same show, acknowledged that his party needs to “bring entitlement reform into the conversation.â€
Edited, Nov 26th 2012 11:31am by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
It's all very careful and wrapped in "only if democrats agree to cut even more"
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
lolgaxe wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
It's all very careful and wrapped in "only if democrats agree to cut even more"
edit: I do hope it was you who commented on that some time a while ago. I can't be ***** to look it up and you've probably posted 10000 times since then
Edited, Nov 26th 2012 6:34pm by Aethien
They really don't have a choice.
It was incredibly short-sighted of the party to even communicate such an inflexible unbounded pledge to the public to begin with.
I liked Lindsey Grahams quote:
'''
Gyro's be damned.
It was incredibly short-sighted of the party to even communicate such an inflexible unbounded pledge to the public to begin with.
I liked Lindsey Grahams quote:
Quote:
When you're $16 trillion in debt, the only pledge we should be making to each other is to avoid becoming Greece
Gyro's be damned.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Elinda wrote:
I liked Lindsey Grahams quote:
Quote:
When you're $16 trillion in debt, the only pledge we should be making to each other is to avoid becoming Greece
Something like that, yes. If they can actually agree and get something passed before the 11th hour I'll be somewhere in a state of shock, but it's nice to see the rhetoric softening a bit. Gives hope that somewhere in there we may well find a solution.
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Does this mean we can finally get back to making policies based on what's good for the country rather than what looks good come election season?
Server: Midgardsormr
Occupation: Reckless Red Mage
I think RDM's neurotic omniscience is sooooooo worth including in any alliance.
Occupation: Reckless Red Mage
IcookPizza wrote:
I think RDM's neurotic omniscience is sooooooo worth including in any alliance.
cidbahamut wrote:
Does this mean we can finally get back to making policies based on what's good for the country rather than what looks good come election season?
That's crazy talk!
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
It's all very careful and wrapped in "only if democrats agree to cut even more"
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Any Republican that supports tax increases will lose in the mid term.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Any Republican that supports tax increases will lose in the mid term.
Hopefully to Democrats!
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Ironically, Obama's been the least spendy president since the 1950s. (Wall Street Journal.)
Edited, Nov 27th 2012 5:59pm by catwho
Edited, Nov 27th 2012 5:59pm by catwho
But that's using math and history, so it doesn't count.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
crazylegz1975 wrote:
catwho wrote:
Ironically, Obama's been the least spendy president since the 1950s. (Wall Street Journal.)
Edited, Nov 27th 2012 5:59pm by catwho
Edited, Nov 27th 2012 5:59pm by catwho
It's not ironic. Simply ignoring all of Obama's first year of spending is your best bet to sell the lie to yourself.
Did you see the asterisk? They moved the extra spending he approved into his column.
They also did the same thing (giving the prior year to the previous president) for all prior presidents too so it's not like it's inconsistent or anything.
Edited, Nov 28th 2012 10:33am by someproteinguy
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Any Republican that supports tax increases will lose in the mid term.
dont toy with me
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Simply ignoring all of Obama's first year of spending is your best bet to sell the lie to yourself.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
lolgaxe wrote:
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Simply ignoring all of Obama's first year of spending is your best bet to sell the lie to yourself.
If you unskew the numbers...
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
someproteinguy wrote:
crazylegz1975 wrote:
It's not ironic. Simply ignoring all of Obama's first year of spending is your best bet to sell the lie to yourself.
Did you see the asterisk? They moved the extra spending he approved into his column.
They also did the same thing (giving the prior year to the previous president) for all prior presidents too so it's not like it's inconsistent or anything.
Sure. And if I ignore the tendency to explode when suffering a rear-end collision for all cars, I can make a Ford Pinto look like it's a safe car. Nothing inconsistent with that at all. You get that most presidents also don't embark on massive spending increases in their first year in office, right? That's where the argument fails.
Oh. And also "revenue" is not the same as "tax rates". Just putting that out there for general consumption.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
crazylegz1975 wrote:
It's not ironic. Simply ignoring all of Obama's first year of spending is your best bet to sell the lie to yourself.
Did you see the asterisk? They moved the extra spending he approved into his column.
They also did the same thing (giving the prior year to the previous president) for all prior presidents too so it's not like it's inconsistent or anything.
Sure. And if I ignore the tendency to explode when suffering a rear-end collision for all cars, I can make a Ford Pinto look like it's a safe car. Nothing inconsistent with that at all. You get that most presidents also don't embark on massive spending increases in their first year in office, right? That's where the argument fails.
Oh. And also "revenue" is not the same as "tax rates". Just putting that out there for general consumption.
God you are stupid. The budget is done up the year prior, not the year of. Christ, gibberish boy you got a lot dumber in your 2 weeks of mourning.
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.
rdmcandie wrote:
gbaji wrote:
...
Gbaji doesn't understand the difference between election year, calendar year, and fiscal year. It's hogwash!
Gbaji wrote:
Oh. And also "revenue" is not the same as "tax rates". Just putting that out there for general consumption.
But "revenue" does equal "taxes", when we're talking about the federal government's revenue, you semantically obsessed little birther, you.
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin
gbaji wrote:
. You get that most presidents also don't embark on massive spending increases in their first year in office, right? That's where the argument fails.
Right, hence the asterisk. That whole stimulus thing was out of the ordinary, so they corrected the number in that case to correct for it, increasing his numbers.
Quote:
When Obama took the oath of office, the $789 billion bank bailout had already been approved. Federal spending on unemployment benefits, food stamps and Medicare was already surging to meet the dire unemployment crisis that was well underway. See the CBO’s January 2009 budget outlook.
Obama is not responsible for that increase, though he is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill, from the expansion of the children’s health-care program and from other appropriations bills passed in the spring of 2009.
Obama is not responsible for that increase, though he is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill, from the expansion of the children’s health-care program and from other appropriations bills passed in the spring of 2009.
Or am I missing something?
If anything they should probably point out that the Bush administration dialing down the Iraq war helps make Obama look good?
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
BrownDuck wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
gbaji wrote:
...
Gbaji doesn't understand the difference between election year, calendar year, and fiscal year. It's
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.
gbaji wrote:
You get that most presidents also don't embark on massive spending increases in their first year in office, right?
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Recent Visitors: 461
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (461)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Republicans ready to raise taxes.
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC