A Complete Waste of Space

House Democrats Reject Obama's Tax Cut Deal

Still furious over the compromise that President Obama struck with Senate Republicans on the expiring Bush tax cuts, House Democrats voted Thursday not to take up the negotiated package and instead work to find a measure that they could support.

Although it was a nonbinding voice vote cast in a closed Democratic caucus, it was nonetheless designed to send a message to the president that House Democrats remain unhappy with the concessions he made in his efforts to avoid the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts at the end of the year.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/09 ... k2%7C30117

This is about as smart as dropping a tactical nuke on yer neighbor without considering the "fall out"......in 2012.

:LOL
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 70638.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ah, what I thought about the timing of expiration, sunsets, etc

Given the certainty that any tax-rate extensions would be temporary, I thought they'd be either for three years or one year. I thought the Obama campaign would prefer to run without having to re-fight the same tax-rate battle. Totally wrong. Barack Obama wants this fight.

That Monday tax deal had to be the worst day of Barack Obama's presidency. I'd be surprised if this most insouciant of presidents was able to sleep Monday after the statement he issued at the White House about the deal. That was no mere statement. It was a class warrior's cry from the heart.

He lashed "the wealthiest Americans" three times, not to mention "the wealthiest 2% of Americans," "tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires," "wealthy people" and—channeling the French revolution—"the wealthiest estates." (Louisiana Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu, answering the party's casting call for the role of Madame Defarge, denounced the deal as "morally corrupt." Keep her away from knitting needles.)

p.s. they're not tax cuts, they are either NOT tax increases, or tax increases, there is NO "cut" at all!!!
I think soon we may just have a class war on our hands!
And Barry, a big millionaire himself could brag he pays EXTRA tax each year, couldn't he??

actually, Obama did what I expected him to do on everything, at the outset. He hammered out a deal himself and left the Congressional Dems out of it. I said(I believe here, but definitely in Dem places) back when he was elected that Obama's real problems will be caused by his fellow Dems.
(That's actually the part I don't understand about some conservative flag-wavers: Obama is clearly NOT allied with the Pelosi wing of the party. He ran on reasonable compromise.) Sad that political concerns trumped the interests of the people, again. The whole package is, however, a major deficit inducer, to the tune of around another trillion dollars over just the next couple of years, by the most dire estimates(at least half that, to be sure). I guess deficits aren't really all THAT big an issue, huh?

callmeslick wrote: actually, Obama did what I expected him to do on everything, at the outset. He hammered out a deal himself and left the Congressional Dems out of it. I said(I believe here, but definitely in Dem places) back when he was elected that Obama's real problems will be caused by his fellow Dems.

Well you did say something a little like that....as I recall it, it was more that the ultra left wing Dem's would or were clashing with him.....

callmeslick wrote:(That's actually the part I don't understand about some conservative flag-wavers: Obama is clearly NOT allied with the Pelosi wing of the party. He ran on reasonable compromise.) Sad that political concerns trumped the interests of the people, again. The whole package is, however, a major deficit inducer, to the tune of around another trillion dollars over just the next couple of years, by the most dire estimates(at least half that, to be sure). I guess deficits aren't really all THAT big an issue, huh?

What's wrong with being a conservative flag-waver? What's wrong with being a liberal flag-waver? Nothing in my book, if you know what the flag means.....Well Obama is clearly not allied with them now or at least for the moment....What is "sad"? "that political concerns trumped the interests of the people, again." Yup and it is sad. There is a fix for that...vote everyone of them out over the next three elections, all of them. Start impeaching/recalling a few of them. Do you advocate? That the people should control the government? Or, the government should control the people?

There are a couple of simple questions above and I ask them, not to put you on the spot, ridicule or insult you. I ask them for purposes of clarity, in an attempt to engage you in dialog. Should you have an interest?

It's a tempest in a teapot.

Old George will get Barry back on his knee shortly and have him saying and doing the "proper" things for the good of George.

Surely, Barry wouldn't reneg


oopsies...

Surely, Barry wouldn't renege? I mean, he wouldn't pull a "gitmo" on us.....he wouldn't dare, it's Christmas.....

Pudfark wrote:What's wrong with being a conservative flag-waver? What's wrong with being a liberal flag-waver? Nothing in my book, if you know what the flag means.....Well Obama is clearly not allied with them now or at least for the moment....What is "sad"? "that political concerns trumped the interests of the people, again." Yup and it is sad. There is a fix for that...vote everyone of them out over the next three elections, all of them. Start impeaching/recalling a few of them. Do you advocate? That the people should control the government? Or, the government should control the people?

I advocate that the people wake the fuck up and quit listening to goofball radio talking heads and bloggers on the left or right. Then, and only then, is there some hope that the nation can be saved. Oh, and nothing whatsoever is wrong with being a standard-bearer for Conservatism or whatever. I merely said that I was puzzled that Obama is in the crosshairs as much as he was with the right. He isn't the one who doesn't wish to work with them.

callmeslick wrote:I advocate that the people wake the fuck up and quit listening to goofball radio talking heads and bloggers on the left or right.

Slick, you make it sound like folks should only listen to one voice/point of view, maybe a "centrist" one? I say folks have the right to all the facts and opinions, before making their decisions.

Do you advocate a modification of the First Amendment? Do you think all folks are to stupid/ignorant and irresponsible to have this guaranteed right and the freedom to exercise it?

Did you factor in slander and libel as the buffer?

I am not picking on you...though, I am smiling on this one...as it seems, I am more liberal than you on this issue....

[quote="Pudfark]Slick, you make it sound like folks should only listen to one voice/point of view, maybe a "centrist" one? I say folks have the right to all the facts and opinions, before making their decisions.[/quote]

that is exactly what I am saying, listen to all and think for yourself. Far too few do that.