drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:What

Your own wingnut faction is squirming:

DeMinted response to the tax deal hubbub

McConnell's a bootlicking toad, but like a good used-car salesman he knows enough to shut up when the deal he wanted - preserve plutocrax cuts - got done.

The lunatic DeMint is prepared to insist Captain Slackpants and company protract the discussion with some sort of assertion that it's not enough to bathe the genitals of our economic superiors with our saliva - we must simultaneously analrape the unfortunate sans lube.

DeMint and Voinovich aren't going to vote for it. DeMint isn't voting for anything less than a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts; Voinovich isn't voting for the extension of any tax cuts. Coburn isn't happy that there aren't spending cuts to pay for some or all of the tax cut extensions, but hasn't said whether he'll oppose it or vote for it. Most of the rest of the caucus seems relatively happy. There've been a few defections in the House, but it seems like most of the major players have come out in favor of it.

If we get 150 House members and 35-40 Senators to vote for it, and the Dems can't come up with 70 folks in their House caucus and 20 in the Senate, they own the coming tax hike. That's why I think when push comes to shove, they'll get the votes they need.

As rumors of a deal circulated Monday afternoon, Arkansas GOP Rep.-elect Steve Womack....went on to say that enough was enough when it comes to jobless benefits.

“We’ve already gone to 99 weeks — that’s a better part of two years — and at some point in time, I fear that we’re going to create an entire culture of joblessness in our nation. … There has to be a point in time out there where we have to come to the realization that it’s no longer affordable,” he said.

testify, you witless freshman cracker - and louder, because JHoya can't hear you


the compromise compromise should already be obvious: lop off the extended tax cut for $1 million+ earners, and throttle back the UI extension by [___name your favorite portion: 50%; 33%; whatever]

Speak up Mitch; you sound like you swallowed half your dinner napkin

(He's not a congressman yet)

Womack isn't a total nut. However, his son has been convicted and faces 10 years for dealing meth.

TenuredVulture wrote:Also, Harry Reid is trying to insert language in the tax bill that would legalize on-line gambling in such a way that it would benefit Vegas Casinos and even though they gave a few hundred thou to his campaign, it's not payback.

it should be fully legal.

pacino wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Also, Harry Reid is trying to insert language in the tax bill that would legalize on-line gambling in such a way that it would benefit Vegas Casinos and even though they gave a few hundred thou to his campaign, it's not payback.

it should be fully legal.

From what I've read, though, the purpose of this legislation is to drive Full Tilt Poker and that other poker site out of business.

jerseyhoya wrote:(He's not a congressman yet)

You're right. the impending vote on this thing will resolve the matters at hand for all time.

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:What

Your own wingnut faction is squirming:

DeMinted response to the tax deal hubbub

McConnell's a bootlicking toad, but like a good used-car salesman he knows enough to shut up when the deal he wanted - preserve plutocrax cuts - got done.

The lunatic DeMint is prepared to insist Captain Slackpants and company protract the discussion with some sort of assertion that it's not enough to bathe the genitals of our economic superiors with our saliva - we must simultaneously analrape the unfortunate sans lube.

DeMint and Voinovich aren't going to vote for it. DeMint isn't voting for anything less than a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts; Voinovich isn't voting for the extension of any tax cuts. Coburn isn't happy that there aren't spending cuts to pay for some or all of the tax cut extensions, but hasn't said whether he'll oppose it or vote for it. Most of the rest of the caucus seems relatively happy. There've been a few defections in the House, but it seems like most of the major players have come out in favor of it.

If we get 150 House members and 35-40 Senators to vote for it, and the Dems can't come up with 70 folks in their House caucus and 20 in the Senate, they own the coming tax hike. That's why I think when push comes to shove, they'll get the votes they need.

oh boy, political concerns trump all. I think people see who 'owns' this, and it's not democrats

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G0dIKy3d2s&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

gotta agree with him[/url]

pacino wrote:I think people see who 'owns' this, and it's not democrats

Really? You really think that?

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:I think people see who 'owns' this, and it's not democrats

Really? You really think that?

It's the truth. The only reason this was held up was because of republicans. Surely this isnt tough to explain should it happen to not pass.

Plus, it's not even a tax raise; it's what the tax rate IS. These temp cuts failed to do what republicans promised they'd do, why are we repeating failed policies? For fear of voter retribution? Screw that...when the econmy improves theyd be back. Now we are delaying the full recovery for short-term political concerns

And just further adding to the deficit that the Republicans created and now bitch and whine about.

pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:I think people see who 'owns' this, and it's not democrats

Really? You really think that?

It's the truth. The only reason this was held up was because of republicans. Surely this isnt tough to explain should it happen to not pass.

Plus, it's not even a tax raise; it's what the tax rate IS. These temp cuts failed to do what republicans promised they'd do, why are we repeating failed policies? For fear of voter retribution? Screw that...when the econmy improves theyd be back. Now we are delaying the full recovery for short-term political concerns

How the hell is this delaying the full recovery? You think higher marginal tax rates would improve our chances at economic recovery? Not that the budget deficit and mounting debt aren't valid concerns, but in the short term our ability to borrow appears strong. I'm not sure, at all, how you work out that this is delaying the full recovery for short-term political concerns.

lower rates didn't work. 'higher' rates generate more revenue for the government to reinvest in infrastructure and provide things which stimulate the economy. if the stimulus had less tax cuts in it it would've helped even more.

our taxes were already damn low in the 90s, why go lower?

a daily caller blogger committed welfare fraud and concluded that people on nutrition benefits shouldn't be allowed to buy anything of value, nor should they eat like the rest of us normals.

drsmooth wrote:

Steve Womack wrote:I fear that we’re going to create an entire culture of joblessness in our nation.

I thinks the economy kinda did that
(oh snap!)

TenuredVulture wrote:Womack isn't a total nut. However, his son has been convicted and faces 10 years for dealing meth.

Well, that's the solution! No UI extension so when your's runs out, go deal meth. Then when you get caught, the gvmt pays for your room and board for 10 years

pacino wrote:lower rates didn't work. 'higher' rates generate more revenue for the government to reinvest in infrastructure and provide things which stimulate the economy. if the stimulus had less tax cuts in it it would've helped even more.

our taxes were already damn low in the 90s, why go lower?

In what ways did lower rates not work? Do you think the past decade would have had more job growth or better GDP growth or higher incomes if the tax rates remained the same as at the end of the 1990s?

government investment in infrastructure would've gone much further, and provided a more solid base for future development of the economy.

these did nothing. our two stupid checks did very little. putting money out there is an aimless way of trying to put good use to said money

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:lower rates didn't work. 'higher' rates generate more revenue for the government to reinvest in infrastructure and provide things which stimulate the economy. if the stimulus had less tax cuts in it it would've helped even more.

our taxes were already damn low in the 90s, why go lower?

In what ways did lower rates not work? Do you think the past decade would have had more job growth or better GDP growth or higher incomes if the tax rates remained the same as at the end of the 1990s?

this is what some might refer to as a false dichotomy