House GOP offers a familiar ‘Plan B’ for dodging the fiscal cliff
Reports from Washington vary on how close President Obama and Speaker John Boehner are to striking a deal to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff. But the emergence of Boehner’s apparent back-up plan in case they don’t reach an agreement caught my eye.
This morning, Boehner said his “Plan B” is for the House to extend all the rates for taxpayers earning $1 million or less per year while raising them on those who make more than that, and leaving the broader discussion for next year. Hmmm … who has suggested just such an approach?
[T]o, to Obama, this clearly is more about good politics than good policy. The House GOP should respond in kind.
It should pass the “Buffett Rule” bill that failed to pass the Senate in April, amended to include an extension of all current tax rates through 2013, as a down payment. While the Buffett Rule is projected to raise $47 billion during the next decade if the current tax rates for high earners are not extended, I’ve seen projections of more than $160 billion in 10 years if rates don’t rise. That’s an increase of approximately $16 billion next year, and it comes from real millionaires — not Obama’s “millionaire” couples who earn $250,00 a year.
Boehner wasn’t specific about the rate he envisions for million-dollar earners. If he was referring to the Buffett Rule, I assume he would have mentioned it by name and taken the credit for backing an Obama policy in the spirit of compromise. So I’m not exactly taking credit for the new Plan B.
But I still think it makes sense, if Boehner believes he can’t get a good deal from the president, to take away the “GOP only protects the rich” argument by proving the House is willing to raise taxes on the real “millionaires and billionaires” Obama is so fond of talking about — but insisting on more substance from Obama in any bigger deal.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
250 comments Add your comment
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
December 18th, 2012
1:07 pm
If Boehner thinks he can get a good deal from obozo then he is truly naive.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
December 18th, 2012
1:08 pm
If Boehner believes one word that obozo says then he is worse than naive.
@@
December 18th, 2012
1:20 pm
Obama’s “millionaire” couples who earn $250,00 a year.
Kyle, you dropped one of the golden goose eggs.
For Obama to place those making $250,000 a year in the category of millionaires has never made sense to me.
Haste makes waste. Democrats are fond of both.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 18th, 2012
1:21 pm
Democrats won’t permit any real spending cuts or entitlement reforms. Republicans won’t allow taxes to be raised except on the top 1-2%. Nothing really changes. Nothing gets fixed. Don’t worry, the Titanic is unsinkable.
Just forget about all the media garbage (sorry Kyle) and the political garbage and at least enjoy Christmas.
Logical Dude
December 18th, 2012
1:22 pm
Everyone (ie, Boehner, Obama) should also take the easy step in adjusting COLA for Medicare and Social Security. Basic, basic steps that have been brought up before, and brushed repeatedly under the rug.
Terry Tucker
December 18th, 2012
1:23 pm
At some point the GOP needs to remember they are supposed to do what is in the best interest of the United States – not the Republican Party.
dcb
December 18th, 2012
1:25 pm
Can Obama agree to anything from Hawaii?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 18th, 2012
1:28 pm
Let’s not forget that both Princess Pelosi and Upchuck Schumer both suggested a $1 million income threshold beforehand.
And suddenly, it’s not good enough for President Incompetent.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 18th, 2012
1:29 pm
Terry Tucker: At some point the GOP needs to remember they are supposed to do what is in the best interest of the United States
—————–
And what might that be?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 18th, 2012
1:29 pm
“At some point the GOP needs to remember they are supposed to do what is in the best interest of the United States – not the Republican Party.”
Democrats and President Incompetent should remember that as well, Terry.
dcb
December 18th, 2012
1:31 pm
To Logical Dude above – from one of those senior citizens who fortunatelly, doesn’t live on Social Security alone …. the current COLA increase for Medicare and SS is a joke in the first place. Removing the cost of food and whatever else from the gross amount is the first joke. And then if you look at this year, the increase in the SS and Medicare Part B alone took virtually all but a dollar or two from the so-called cost-of-living increase. Add the increases allowed for Parts D and G and as will always be the case with the current system, seniors such as me actually go significantly backwards. But such is life and at age 71, I guess until my wife and I are forced to use any other “entitlements” that are out there, worrying about what ain’t going to happen at the hands of the fat cats occupying Congressional seats with handsome retirement benefits “earned” with as little as 1 day of service, isn’t worth the hassle.
BenDaho
December 18th, 2012
1:31 pm
After the repubs cave, we’ll get to watch O’spender kick the can down the road and offer nothing in the way spending cuts or entitlement reforms. This country needs some real leadership, not politics by polls.
JamVet
December 18th, 2012
1:33 pm
Man, you economic liberals in the GOP crack me up!
For years you go ballistic over any mention of the name Buffett.
NOW, you love his ideas.
Is it any wonder your political party has almost zero credibility on any and all matters fiscal?
(The answer is no.)
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 18th, 2012
1:34 pm
JamVet’s making stuff up again.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 18th, 2012
1:40 pm
Terry Tucker, what’s in the best interest of the United States, in your humble opinion? Should taxes be higher or lower? For all, or just a few? Should spending be higher or lower? Should entitlements be reformed or not?
Come on man, we’re all waiting to hear what you think is in the best interest of the U.S.
Daniel
December 18th, 2012
1:44 pm
When we were an inch away from budget surpluses under Clinton were we not also a inch away from actually bring the deficits down? Then what happened?
Bush tax cuts, (a trillion), medicare part D (a trillion), a unjust war in Iraq (3+ trillion and counting.)Talk all the BS about spending you want, Republicans are pretty much to blame, although they like to pretend they are perfect.
Remember America, Republicans started this by not raising the debt limit, just to make Obama look bad, even though a huge part of the debt is their doing.
See, Republicans take credit for everything but responsibility for nothing. They don’t stand for anything and no one asks then to, especially their dimwitted voters.
I think Democrats would gladly own the raising of the taxes on the rich. Right back to Clinton era rates, and with out raising taxes on poor or middle class. It’s a win, win. …and closing some loopholes for the rich that let them dodge taxes and get tax breaks on their Private Jets.The fact of the matter is that raising taxes on the rich the Clifton levels does not hurt our economy one bit. Republicans have been spewing that lie for far to long.
The problem Republicans have is their feet are stuck in the pit of hypocritical mud. They talk a big game about reducing spending but they don’t reduce any spending when they are in power. They crank it up! They talk about cutting programs that actually help people but wouldn’t really make a dent on the deficit if they were cut.
What are Republicans really afraid of? I’ll tell you. It’s getting what THEY want. Reduced spending, but not the type they want to talk about. The fiscal cliff cuts defense spending by drastic amounts and that’s what their really afraid of. The military industrial complex is their “social engineering program” that they won’t cut because they are bankrolled by the industry. Republicans have no problem wasting trillions of tax dollars blowing up civilians in foreign countries that did not attack us, or a give away to big pharma, but helping the poor or vets get good healthcare when they come home from unnecessary wars is spending too much.
Bankers and baller CEO’s are the only people that Republicans really care about. Remember the midterm elections America!! Vote all these Republicans hacks out!
BenDaho
December 18th, 2012
1:45 pm
JamVet
December 18th, 2012
1:33 pm
Man, you economic liberals in the GOP crack me up!
For years you go ballistic over any mention of the name Buffett.
NOW, you love his ideas.
Is it any wonder your political party has almost zero credibility on any and all matters fiscal?
(The answer is no.)
I know you commies have all the credibility on the economy. Jimmy Carter should have won the nobel prize for his mastery of it.
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
December 18th, 2012
1:46 pm
This plan sounds so much more helpful than the total GOP cave they were talking about yesterday, where the GOP was going to let the Mistake raise the debt ceiling at will. Pass it, go home, and let the Senate do what they usually do, nothing. Let Barry explain why this was not good enough, to his loyal sycophants and his lapdog media. People with any sense of fair play and reasoning will ignore him as usual, as they realize the GOP did the best they could to avert tax raises on most Americans.
No matter what happens, the GOP is going to get the blame from the low information voters and the media, but they shouldn’t help Barry sink the economy, just to get credit for “working together”.
loco
December 18th, 2012
1:48 pm
500K or so will be the point where the taxes increase.
Laugh, growl, get as vitriolic as you like, but you read it here…
Guess it couldn’t be any worse than Rove, Morris and other right wing pundits predictions regarding the election
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
December 18th, 2012
1:48 pm
The rate on capital gains needs to increase as well.
Kyle Wingfield
December 18th, 2012
1:51 pm
Logical @ 1:22: I believe that (at least for SS) is on the table for a grand bargain if they can agree on taxes.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
December 18th, 2012
1:51 pm
And forget about changes to Social Security. WE aren’t going to fix this thing on the backs of our elderly.
Close a couple of military bases or whatever — defense should be the MAIN target.
What does it mean when you spend more than the next 27 countries combined on defense? That you are chicken s&%$, scaredy cat, might as well be hiding under the bed.
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
December 18th, 2012
1:51 pm
Daniel, is there a DNC talking point to which you do not believe? I think you covered all their points in one post, except nothing on gun control.
Kyle Wingfield
December 18th, 2012
1:52 pm
JamVet @ 1:33: Looks like you need to go back and re-read (or read for the first time) what I wrote last month. It’s linked in the OP.
Nzinga
December 18th, 2012
1:53 pm
Well I was going to buy a Fantasy 5 ticket this afternoon until I realized that if I win I’ll be in the evil-millionaire tax bracket so I’ll just use my $1 to buy 1/3 gallon of gas.
loco
December 18th, 2012
1:54 pm
Kyle
SS for sure. I can see an increase in the cap and probably some new age requirements, higher penalties for collecting early, etc
curious
December 18th, 2012
1:55 pm
Go over the ‘fiscal cliff”.
Time we took real action and let everybody pitch in to help the Nation.
Georgia, The " New Mississippi "
December 18th, 2012
1:55 pm
J-BO and the Tea Party Clowns created this monster called sequestration that now has to be fed. This is the outcome when you sign tax pledges with folks that do not live in your state , city or voting district and insist on playing “team politics” at the expense of the folks back home. President Obama was elected to represent our nation. J-BO was elected by a handful of white guys that represent gerrymandered Congressional districts. President Obama is going to have to take the gloves off sooner or later and deal with J-BO Chicago style.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 18th, 2012
1:58 pm
Daniel: Republicans are pretty much to blame, although they like to pretend they are perfect.
——————
And yet, no Republican ever proposed or ran a trillion dollar deficit.
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
December 18th, 2012
1:58 pm
Finn,
And forget about changes to Social Security. WE aren’t going to fix this thing on the backs of our elderly.
I thought it was the GOP is going fix this thing on the backs of the poor, then I heard the backs of the middle class, now the elderly. Maybe we should go on to the backs of the disabled, or the children, WAIT, that one would be true, for a change. Truth in a slogan, whodda thought it.
We are continuing to run up debt, which is going to be passed on to our children. So, the Dems are in favor of continuing to spend and finance the spending on the backs of our children and grandchildren. Stout lads and laddies, all, they should be able to handle it.
loco
December 18th, 2012
2:01 pm
Barry
Nor have they did much more than talk and brainwash you that they have attempted to stop one… They do run the House, do they not?
Or does Obama now have authority to bypass the House on Appropriations
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 18th, 2012
2:01 pm
The fiscal mess isn’t going to be fixed by politicians. It isn’t the politicians fault, either. It’s our fault because we (and by “we” I mean the majority that is dependent on government) will never allow the politicians to fix the mess.
The mess is going to be fixed by those who loan us money.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 18th, 2012
2:04 pm
loco: [Republicans] do run the House, do they not?
——————
They do. Would you support them shutting down the government to cut the deficit in half? Because that’s what it would take.
Man up–do you support a government shutdown, or are you just talking big?
Centrist
December 18th, 2012
2:05 pm
Plan B and what ever the Democrats send back to the House will be one of those last second bills they do just as they adjourn and leave town – blaming the other side for not accepting it. Maybe there will be at least some partial deal and extend the Jan 2nd deadline on taxes and sequestration before such an option.
I saw an article which said Boehner should now drop to $500K from his $1 million on tax rate increases, which was just the writer’s opinion. Hard to say where they might meet on tax rates. Much of the added revenue will really come from changes in capital gains, dividend/interest, caps/phaseouts on deductions, exemptions, and tax credits.
The real sticking point is now spending. Democrats are refusing to phase in an increase in age for Medicare eligibility, and using bogus accounting for other “cuts”. Boehner and Republicans might go along with some of this to save face and cut a deal postponing real cuts, but not most of the smoke, mirrors, and future promises. The debt ceiling will be the next point when real cuts or more creative accounting will have to be made, and both sides are jockeying as to how far off to postpone that time frame.
Boehner and Republicans were way late in finally agreeing to at least a “Buffet rule”. Had they done this during the “Grand Bargain” negotiations or election campaign, things would be a lot further along now – maybe they would have done better in the election, too. They overreached trying to have their cake and eat it too hoping for a Romney win and protection of the ultra wealthy including themselves, family, friends, and campaign contributors. There are also many Democrat Senators and their entourage supporters who secretly were glad a “Buffet rule” was defeated last year. Trust and tax attorneys will be getting a lot of work to get around as much of this as possible.
loco
December 18th, 2012
2:06 pm
They can do as Newt did….
Man up…. A midget telling me to man up..
Hahahahahahahahah
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 18th, 2012
2:09 pm
Oh, hello sockpuppet.
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
December 18th, 2012
2:10 pm
The mess is going to be fixed by those who loan us money.
LBB, homerun, truer words have never before been posted on this blog. Neither side can fix this, the takers will not allow it. The politicians will continue to pander until they can’t borrow anymore, to pander with. Seems as though the only option in the mean time is to delay the day that happens, by supporting the GOP.
Dusty
December 18th, 2012
2:10 pm
Well, yawn and ho hum, all plans are beginning to sound just like the plan before and the one before that one..
One thing I do know. People making $250,000 per year are not millionaires They are not buiilding football stadiums, aquariums or art museums. They are “unbuilding” their mortrgages most of the time.
So this vibrant (zzzz) .discussion between O & B is going to end with a hug & a squeeze and a fresh pineapple to the winner..The great debt burden will shrink to an insignificent fifteen trillion. The fiscal cliff will be bulldozed and a field of sweet petunias will blossom for us. Hot dog!! Happy days are here again!!
WHAT? There’s a PLAN C? You betcha. Everyone will ask Santa to drop a million $$$ in every chimney and stocking . Yes, Virginia, there is a PLAN C.
Just Saying..
December 18th, 2012
2:11 pm
“And suddenly, it’s not good enough for President Incompetent.”
That would be two-term President Incompetent.
The American President.
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
December 18th, 2012
2:14 pm
That would be two-term President Incompetent.
The American President.
Pride goeth before the fall!
loco
December 18th, 2012
2:16 pm
Kyle
While I certainly agree that 250K is not close to being a millionaire in terms of income, did Obama say that exactly or is that an implication?
He may have. If so, you should have put in the actual quote in your article.
loco
December 18th, 2012
2:18 pm
Rafe
Good post. Bush certialy found that.
1961_Xer
December 18th, 2012
2:25 pm
The mess is going to be fixed by those who loan us money.
That, I think, sums it up. That is the way Greece is getting fixed. That will be the way that Argentina gets fixed. That is the way all nations who are close to defaulting on debt get fixed.
The congress and BO are going to kick the can yet again…
Kyle Wingfield
December 18th, 2012
2:27 pm
loco @ 2:16: Here’s one example. Note that this story ran before he proposed his Buffett Rule, the only tax plan of his that applies only to people making more than $1M, as far as I’m aware. Certainly, at that time, he was advocating only the rate increases on those earning more than $200K ($250K for married couples).
1961_Xer
December 18th, 2012
2:27 pm
While I certainly agree that 250K is not close to being a millionaire in terms of income, did Obama say that exactly or is that an implication?
He campaigned for two years on “millionaires and billionaires”. How much “exactly” or “implication” do you need?
@@
December 18th, 2012
2:27 pm
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama, with his latest fiscal cliff offer, proposes extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone earning less than $400,000 a year, and paying for it by increasing taxes on the middle class and cutting Social Security and Medicare.
Obama’s offer would allow the payroll tax holiday to expire, meaning middle class workers will see smaller paychecks in 2013. Economists have warned that the recovery is too fragile to risk a broad tax hike on workers. It would also gradually reduce Social Security, pension and disability benefits seniors are due to receive, taking a small bite up front, but building up to much larger cuts over time.–Huffington
Had to read that one twice. His base will go ballistic.
Oh well….
Dusty
December 18th, 2012
2:31 pm
Well, how intriguing! Another blogger who finds the need to direct Kyle. That is loco.@ 2:16
What is the motive of loco???Huh??? Yes, the locomotive! Choo on that one for a while.
loco
December 18th, 2012
2:34 pm
Kyle
Thanks for the feedback…
I’m sure you know, just as Obama knows and as the Speaker knows… The numbers being thrown out will not be the final number..
Speaker knows 1M is going to fly and Obama despite the rhetoric knows 250K will not either
I say 500K at the end of the day.
loco
December 18th, 2012
2:37 pm
Dusty
Within the stated rules I will comment and question as I please. As you see Kyle responded.
You are welcome to cry, pout and play drama queen if that makes you feel better about yourself…
Have a tissue
loco
December 18th, 2012
2:39 pm
What is the motive of your whining Dusty?
Huh?
Dusty
December 18th, 2012
2:43 pm
At the end of the day, I think I will just invest my taxes into buying a lottery ticket.I. Let us all do that. Chances of success are about the same. . Call it Plan D.
loco
December 18th, 2012
2:46 pm
Bless your little heart, BIG dusty
Have a great holiday season
Merry Christmas
JamVet
December 18th, 2012
2:48 pm
…Jimmy Carter should have won the nobel prize for his mastery of it.
Odd choice of words, meat.
He did win a Nobel Peace Prize.
Two words – Camp David.
Did you sleep through high school?
And I guess you deranged McCarthyites never got the message that your witch hunts ended LONG ago. And your hero’s ideology died a horrific and shameful death.
But to the extent that you keep on helping this disaster of a GOP go down the electoral toilet, I’m here to help you.
Keep up the good work. (Though the 1950s misses you terribly!)
Dusty
December 18th, 2012
2:49 pm
ah dear loco loco
Haven’t you heard? Boredom is the basis for bravado. Buzz off!
Centrist
December 18th, 2012
2:51 pm
There has been some noted movement by BOTH sides from their long stated demands. Republicans first reluctantly agreed to raise at least “Buffet rule” tax rate increases that they have sworn for a decade they would never do. Obama has moved from where he ran two campaigns and 5 years ago argued with “Joe the Plumber” that small businesses and individuals making over $200K a year should accept big tax rate hikes on top of their phased out deductions and exemptions.
At least the partisan dogmatic rhetoric has been broken on taxes. Maybe there will be some bend on “off the table” defense and domestic spending cuts, too.
This is the first inkling of good news since the “Grand Bargain” fell apart.
BenDaho
December 18th, 2012
2:52 pm
JamVet
December 18th, 2012
2:48 pm
…Jimmy Carter should have won the nobel prize for his mastery of it.
Odd choice of words, meat.
He did win a Nobel Peace Prize.
Two words – Camp David.
He ruined the economy from camp david? Who knew, meat.
carlosgvv
December 18th, 2012
2:57 pm
Aesop – “if Boehner thinks he can get a good deal from obozo then he is truly naive”
And if Obama thinks he will get a good and fair deal from Boehner, he is even MORE naive.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
December 18th, 2012
2:58 pm
Of course there’s no outrage about the HSBC settlement in the AJC.
Banks want to launder money for Mexican drug gangs? Cool, have at it. But, fellow citizen, don’t get caught with a little marijuana on your person – that means years of jail time for you.
Dusty
December 18th, 2012
3:00 pm
Speaking of bavado, now comes AMVET with his Barnum & Bailey Circus act.
He’s even written his letter to Santa requesting a Bush doll so he can stick pins into his pet peeve. Not to mention his Crush Cheney Christmas cards
Poor baby! Hasn’t finished his toilet training as you can tell by his GOP comments. He definitely needs a PLAN.
JamVet
December 18th, 2012
3:00 pm
Kyle, due to the Obama Recovery from the Bush Depression, I’ve been pretty swamped and it’s hard to reply in a timely matter.
To your point, so do the economic liberals in the right wing still detest Buffett? Or do they love him now? Or are they merely beginning to realize and acknowledge that he is FAR more credible and knowledgable on these matters than Boehner, McConnel, Ryan and the rest of the coward spendaholics and giove away artists who run the GOP combined?
Benmeat, go find a youth blog where your childish rants about events from five administrations ago are at least to be expected. Or don’t. You are pretty humorous, benji. Albeit unwittingly and in a very sophist way…
MANGLER
December 18th, 2012
3:00 pm
They are compromising, isn’t that what you’ve wanted all along? It goes back and forth until both sides cave a little. Sure, each side preens and postures little, but in the end agreements are made.
As for why something today is seemingly not acceptable when it was months ago, that’s because the GOP said no to it months ago because they were sure they would win the election and then not worry about it. That, and the temper tantrum the Senators like throwing loses them bargaining space, it doesn’t gain them any. The same thing happens when a kid holds their breath to get their way.
Why aren’t you asking why the GOP is suddenly OK with something they were previously not OK with? The said no to the $1M mark but are proposing it now. Why their change of heart?
Halftrack
December 18th, 2012
3:00 pm
There are no tax cuts by either side. What we have is tax rates that have been in place for 10 years. Without a deal; all tax rates will return to what they were 10 years ago. The effectiveness of these talks now by Obummer & Bonner are like doing something unsanitary in the ocean. Our debt is way out of control. It is all about spending. Have you ever spent yourself out of debt? Wake up the Government can”t either.
JamVet
December 18th, 2012
3:03 pm
Dusty, is your broom irritating your hemmorhoids?
You are acting less Christian than ever. Which for you, is really saying something…
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 18th, 2012
3:11 pm
MANGLER: Why aren’t you asking why the GOP is suddenly OK with something they were previously not OK with?
————————–
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the process for turning a bill into a law. Under current law, the tax rates go up for everyone. A new law is needed. Americans, er, Republicans can’t do that all by themselves.
Dusty
December 18th, 2012
3:12 pm
Good heavens, AMVET, you have used that “broom ” idea so long, it has fallen apart.
Shame on you for being repetitious besides your outhouse outlook.
If you would like to evaluate my faith, please list your credentials for doing so. So, thanks, but I have a much better authority to abide by..
Now, shoo. I think it is your nap time.
. .
Centrist
December 18th, 2012
3:13 pm
MANGLER asked: “why the GOP is suddenly OK with something they were previously not OK with? The said no to the $1M mark but are proposing it now. Why their change of heart?”
1. Obama won re-election.
2. Obama finally moved off his $200K individual/ $250K family tax rate hike.
3. Same reason Nancy Pelosi has backed off her previous stance of just doing a Buffet rule on taxes – politics.
BenDaho
December 18th, 2012
3:13 pm
Speaking of hemmorhoids, how did your 3rd prostate exam of the day work out for you at the V.A. hospital? Did they find your head yet?
iggy
December 18th, 2012
3:29 pm
Lets just have Bohner and Obama enter the ThunderDome, two men enter, one man leave and winner makes the call.
iggy
December 18th, 2012
3:31 pm
Jimmy Carter…ugh.
iggy
December 18th, 2012
3:36 pm
I think Bohner could take Obama. I really do!!
JamVet
December 18th, 2012
3:37 pm
Dusty, I love your brand of Republican Christianity! Keep up the good work on god’s behalf.
He’s counting on you and Lil Benji Carter…
BenDaho
December 18th, 2012
3:38 pm
iggy
December 18th, 2012
3:31 pm
Jimmy Carter…ugh.
Jimmy Carter, Obama beta version.
Cutty
December 18th, 2012
3:41 pm
When is Wingfield gonna update his blog to show that Obama decreased his minimum $ tax rate from $250K to $400K, is using an inflation index to deal w entitlements, and is dropping the payroll tax holiday? Boner countered w a Plan B. What are you waiting on Kyle?
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
December 18th, 2012
3:46 pm
Nothing changes with the Dems. We go from
you need to put on a sweater to
you need to pay your fair share.
It is always our fault
we expect too much.
Need to lower our standards
Need to redistribute our wealth.
jconservative
December 18th, 2012
3:50 pm
Spending cuts have already been handled, the cuts go into effect January 2, 2013.
Handle the tax matter, plan A, B, C or whatever, before 12/31/2012 and we will be where we have been for the last 31 years.
No matter how one spins it, the bottom line is that for the last 31 years we have increased government spending and reduced government revenue. Both sides were happy; the Democrats had entitlements going strong and Republicans had tax cuts coming out their years. But not to be outdone, Bush 43 had his own entitlement, all shiny and brand spanking new. Happy days were here again!
And yeah, I am aware that a Republican Congress and Clinton shacked up for 4 years and balanced budgets. But I am also aware that Reagan tripled the national debt and Bush 43 doubled the national debt and Obama, not to be outdone by a mere Republican, is on track to double it also.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 18th, 2012
3:55 pm
No one’s increased spending like Obozo–25% of GDP hasn’t been seen since WWII. And the GDP today is the same as it was four years ago, so don’t even start.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 18th, 2012
4:00 pm
Boehner wasn’t specific about the rate he envisions for million-dollar earners.
Of course he wasn’t.
md
December 18th, 2012
4:08 pm
“”Democrats believe that tax cuts for those earning over a million dollars a year should expire and that we should use the resulting revenues to pay down the deficit,” Pelosi said in the letter. A month earlier on The Charlie Rose Show Pelosi went further, noting Democratic opposition to the $250,000 mark. “In our caucus, there is a school of thought that says let’s get rid of all the tax cuts,” she said. “I say, let’s begin by getting rid of tax cuts for people making more than a million dollars a year. I’m not even saying $250,000. The president’s saying $250,000. A million and above. Who can argue with that?””
Talking about being a flip-flopper. And now Pelosi says no way to Boehners (Her?) plan……too funny.
Kyle Wingfield
December 18th, 2012
4:09 pm
Cutty @ 3:41: As you said, that Obama proposal sparked Boehner’s Plan B — precisely because Obama’s proposal isn’t going anywhere in the House. So why would I write about that?
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
December 18th, 2012
4:11 pm
carlosgv – You are welcome to show us the spending cuts obozo promised Boehner from last year’s deal but be forewarned, finding them will be futile.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
December 18th, 2012
4:15 pm
You can look at anything obozo says in two ways, either he’s a liar or he’s stupid and doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
carlosgvv
December 18th, 2012
4:22 pm
Aesop – 4:11
Last year is dead and gone.
What Obama and Boehner do, or don’t do, THIS month is what counts.
loco
December 18th, 2012
4:25 pm
Big Dust is on a roll.
Get em Dust. Go boy
loco
December 18th, 2012
4:27 pm
Jamvet
exactly…….. That Christian love is awesome………… You can feel it for miles
MarkV
December 18th, 2012
4:28 pm
I understand Kyle’s article is an “opinion piece.” Therefore, hoe does not have to substantiate the following: “To Obama, this clearly is more about good politics than good policy.” It is clear to Kyle, he does not have to make it clear to anybody else.
Also, I suspect we will not get the answer about the question when Obama called couples earning $250,000 a year “millionaires.”
Since that amount has been so much thrown about, with all the whining about the poor small business owner making this money and being squeezed by Obama’s proposal, it is worth noting what the increase in the tax rate that Obama has proposed would really mean. If that small businessman had a taxable income, after all the deductions, of a quarter million dollars, he/she would pay more, how much? Zero $.
clem
December 18th, 2012
4:30 pm
no higher than 400k; figure out some way to get clawbacks from wall st
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 18th, 2012
4:31 pm
That Mike Huckabee is one sick man.
Totally disgusted.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 18th, 2012
4:31 pm
Dusty, AmVet would never stick pins in a George Bush doll.
His preferred method is drowning conservatives in a bathtub.
And never apologizing for the remark.
loco
December 18th, 2012
4:33 pm
Cheesy
He tried to walk back those comments, but it was too late and he knows it…………
But it went over well with a good percentage of his audience. So without a doubt he accomplished his goal
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 18th, 2012
4:33 pm
“Last year is dead and gone.
What Obama and Boehner do, or don’t do, THIS month is what counts.”
This from the guy who brings up “Bush did it” almost as much as anyone else.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 18th, 2012
4:35 pm
Also, I suspect we will not get the answer about the question when Obama called couples earning $250,000 a year “millionaires.”
You wont. He made it up.
Kyle Wingfield
December 18th, 2012
4:38 pm
MarkV @ 4:28: “Also, I suspect we will not get the answer about the question when Obama called couples earning $250,000 a year ‘millionaires.’ ”
You can suspect all you want, and so can Cheesy. But I provided one link at 2:27, two hours before you got suspicious.
Centrist
December 18th, 2012
4:39 pm
Kyle – care to go out on a limb and pick a compromise annual family income where an additional increased tax rates might end up in a tax bargain?
Obama is now at $400K and Boehner at $999K. Splitting the difference in income ($700K) is not close to the middle of projected additional revenue. I’ll go with $575K @ a new 39% tax rate – all other tax rates stay as they currently are: 33% on taxable income over $217,450 and
35% on taxable income over $388,350. Sharper phaseouts and or deduction caps along with increased tax rates for capital gains, interest and dividends will also be in the mix.
MarkV
December 18th, 2012
4:43 pm
Dusty,
A few days ago I asked you who was getting the money spent on domestic programs, and we did not have a chance to complete that discussion. Also, not surprisingly, you misunderstood my question. That was my fault, not making it clearer. My question was not about the purpose of that money. We could argue that from morning till the cows come home, and all we would get was some agreement and some disagreement about what each of us considers necessary. In that context, I would only remind you that while you are fully entitled to have your opinion, there are all the other millions who are entitled to theirs.
But my question was in response to what you wrote in the economic sense, and in view of Kyle’s claim that the $1.4 trillion of revenue by tax increase would be taking money out of the economy. Not surprisingly, Kyle did not bother to answer my question about what the spending cuts would cost the economy. So I am going back to my original question to you. Who gets the money that is called government spending?” I believe it can be answered by one or a few words. And what happens when that spending is cut?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 18th, 2012
4:44 pm
The sad thing is that no matter where each side finally comes down on tax levels, neither side is talking about actual cuts in spending, but rather cuts in the increases in spending.
Increased tax rates will fail, as they always have, as the rich will simply find different deductions to hide their money.
And it’s ALWAYS been the spending, stupid, that is the root cause of our deficits and debt.
And NO ONE is addressing that.
MarkV
December 18th, 2012
4:51 pm
Kyle Wingfield @ 4:38 pm
“You can suspect all you want, and so can Cheesy. But I provided one link at 2:27, two hours before you got suspicious.”
Kyle,
No, you did not. Why don’t you look at the link you have provided, and quote Obama calling couples earning $250,000 a year ‘millionaires.’
JamVet
December 18th, 2012
4:53 pm
tibby, since you are like some sort of broken child’s record player on the subject of bathtubs… have you ever considered sharing one with your hero, Grover Norquist?
Hey, I get it, tibby. Growing up is hard work. And you are struggling mightily.
Is it any wonder that you neocons are damn despondent these days? Seems like centuries since that two bit actor and union thug from California was riding on his white steed to save you from yourselves, huh?
So, especially after this last electoral humiliation. you fake conservatives are demoralized as can be and as confused as a five year old in an algebra class.
If I was a Republican (almost threw up in my mouth) I would be down in the dumps too. You guys are one helluva downward spiral and all you can do is give her the gas. And tell everyone who is not a Republican how stupid and lazy they are.
Good luck and if I can help you with your identity crisis, just give a ring, OK?
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 18th, 2012
4:55 pm
MarkV @ 4:28: “Also, I suspect we will not get the answer about the question when Obama called couples earning $250,000 a year ‘millionaires.’ ”
Read the linked article. Nowhere did he refer to people making 250,000 as millionaires.
Kyle Wingfield
December 18th, 2012
4:57 pm
Cheesy @ 4:55: At the time, his only proposal was to raise taxes on people making more than $200K/$250K. So what else could he have been talking about?
loco
December 18th, 2012
4:58 pm
Chessy
Obama did speak of millionaires and his plan is for 250k. Surely two different things but both from Obama
Kyle has a point, however he is doing some implication and he doesn’t have a direct quote. Not sure if his implication is totally off base
MarkV
December 18th, 2012
4:59 pm
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten @ 4:55 pm
I pointed that out to Kyle a few minutes ago, and my post disappeared in cyberspace.
Kyle Wingfield
December 18th, 2012
5:00 pm
Centrist @ 4:39: I think it all depends on how much else there is to the package. (And fwiw, I believe Boehner’s proposal is for >$1M, so it starts at $1,000,001.)
What I am fairly confident of is that the number will be picked arbitrarily — just as $250K, $400K and $1M were — rather than chosen because of some economic or even fiscal basis.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 18th, 2012
5:00 pm
Anybody else find it ironic that AmVet complains about someone else sounding like a broken record?
AmVet = the ORIGINAL broken record.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 18th, 2012
5:03 pm
Kyle, the whole idea of a tax rate increase is arbitrary.
ZERO revenue will be raised by this, unless deductions and loopholes are also addressed.
This entire exercise is a political game, and has noting to do with economics, revenue or spending.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
December 18th, 2012
5:05 pm
Cheesy has hung up and consulted pmsnbc for an answer to Kyle’s question but they may be off on a psychotic anti gun rant, so let’s give it a few minutes, shall we?
@@
December 18th, 2012
5:06 pm
Why aren’t you asking why the GOP is suddenly OK with something they were previously not OK with?
The GOP are watching the polls. America is in panic mode.
The politicians create the panic in order to have their way. It’s The Power Triangle thingy.
Too many Americans are victims by choice. We’re our own worst enemies.
Weird.
loco
December 18th, 2012
5:06 pm
Well Tiberius
“I accept your surrender”
“Color me shocked”
and the one or two other so called zingers you use, wouldn’t exactly be called fresh material
just saying
Kyle Wingfield
December 18th, 2012
5:09 pm
MarkV @ 4:43: I’m not sure when you asked me to address spending cuts as money taken out of the economy, because I didn’t see the question. I’ll address it now.
In terms of immediate spending cuts, we are talking about less money than Obama wants in immediate tax increases. So, setting aside one’s beliefs about whether some dollars ares more important to the economy than others, the absolute number is lower for spending cuts. More importantly, we are talking mostly about Washington-style spending cuts — that is, we are talking only about adjusting the size of the spending increase, not real spending cuts.
That’s because the bulk of the spending cuts being discussed concern future entitlement spending. And even here, we are mostly talking about Washington-style spending cuts. Changing the Social Security COLA index, for instance, means SS spending per person might increase by, say, 2% annually instead of 3% annually. That’s still an increase. It just isn’t as large an increase, and so future liabilities are not as large as currently forecast.
The tax increases OTOH are real changes in the amount of money in private hands.
loco
December 18th, 2012
5:09 pm
@@
Yes the GOP like the Democrats are watching the polls. It is a great talking point from some on the right to say that the GOP doesn’t do it, but they pay hefty sums like the Dems to see which way the wind is blowing on a state, regional and national level.
We might disagree on many things, but that is a great point.
Just Saying..
December 18th, 2012
5:11 pm
Plan B, Kyle’s Insight, or whatever name it’s given, has these chances of approval:
1) None
2) None At All
Kyle Wingfield
December 18th, 2012
5:11 pm
Tiberius @ 5:03: Oh, I doubt it will be zero. But it won’t come close to the forecasts, because the forecasts expressly don’t take account of changes in behavior due to the higher rates.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 18th, 2012
5:11 pm
Ah, “loco” is just a re-run of another former sock puppet.
Knew the writing style was similar, but I can’t figure out if it was a banned sock puppet, or one that is just feeling inadequate.
loco
December 18th, 2012
5:13 pm
Banned? Suspended? Name change?
Tiberius: You fall into every one of those categories and you hypocritically attempt to call out others
What a laugh? You would be great in a circus………
hahahahahahahahah
Keep swinging
Kyle Wingfield
December 18th, 2012
5:16 pm
MarkV @ 4:5: I’m sorry your comment got hung up in the spam filter. I’m even more sorry you’re refusing to engage in a little deductive reasoning.
1. Obama at that time was only proposing to let the two top tax rates rise, both of which apply to incomes far below $1M per year.
2. Obama at that time, as described in the article linked, referred constantly to getting rid of tax cuts for “millionaires and billionaires.”
Absent evidence Obama was proposing something other than what I’ve described in point 1, there is no way to believe he was being forthright with his comments described in point 2.
Do you not agree? Or do you insist on being a pedantic literalist who thinks 1 and 1 are only 2 if someone actually types the number “2″?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 18th, 2012
5:17 pm
Yup, the appropriately named “loco” is definitely a sock puppet from another life.
Wonder why Kyle’s site attracts them so much?
And why do they like to hide behind them?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 18th, 2012
5:19 pm
“Do you not agree? Or do you insist on being a pedantic literalist who thinks 1 and 1 are only 2 if someone actually types the number “2″?”
Ooooh! Ooooh! Can I answer?
loco
December 18th, 2012
5:19 pm
Tiberius
Keep wondering, but it would be best to wonder why your behavior via your post as lead you to get banned, suspended and to change names……………..
So I will let you wonder and ponder
Have a great evening
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 18th, 2012
5:24 pm
Loco, I changed names due to internet stalking via the members of that other site; nothing more, nothing less.
Would you like to be wrong about even more today, or do you just wish to continue to fixate on me?
md
December 18th, 2012
5:25 pm
“In our caucus, there is a school of thought that says let’s get rid of all the tax cuts,” she said.”
For those that missed it, the hidden agenda for all to see. The dems have always been about tax and spend, and when they get the measly tax hike on the “rich”, they will then tell the masses that they need to jack up all the taxes in order to not cut entitlements…….she has basically admitted the thought is there, now it’s time to expand that thought.
MANGLER
December 18th, 2012
5:26 pm
Thanks y’all for answering. You proved the point I was trying to make which is that both sides are in fact bargaining. Despite the rhetoric coming from both ends, a deal is being crafted.
You’re all so brilliant with economics, why aren’t you all working for the Government to “fix” things?
Pizzaman
December 18th, 2012
5:27 pm
I say let it happen, let the results be felt in all our lives then let the people choose in ‘14 who’s right or wrong. Kyle will probably be happy for those 99 weeks of unemployment. Opp’s forgot! Your side wants to put it back at 26 weeks! Blue Side Up!
loco
December 18th, 2012
5:29 pm
Tiberius
Guess you answered one of three………. Guess those other two didn’t happen, right?
hahahaahahahaha
Keep swinging, little dudette………
@@
December 18th, 2012
5:29 pm
loco:
I expect politicians to blow with the wind.
It’s my confidence in the American people that’s eroding. We want them to cut spending but none of the entitlements to which we’ve become accustomed.
We’ve surrendered our future and the futures of our children to the powers that be.
We’ve become weak in mind and body.
Sad.
MarkV
December 18th, 2012
5:30 pm
Kyle Wingfield @ 5:09 pm
Kyle,
Apparently you misunderstood my question, and in more ways than one. My original question, as I have mentioned, was in response to your argument that the tax revenue increase was money taken out of the economy. From that point of view, I do not know that you mean by arguing that “the absolute number is lower for spending cuts.” In this context it is also completely irrelevant if they are “Washington-style spending cuts.”
Your misunderstanding appears most clearly in your last sentence; “The tax increases OTOH are real changes in the amount of money in private hands.” So my question can now can we worded accordingly: whose hands will feel the spending cuts?
To help you understand, if you are still in the dark, is that the answer to my question to Dusty about who is getting the domestic spending money that the Republicans want to cut, is simple: The people, the Americans.
md
December 18th, 2012
5:34 pm
“To help you understand, if you are still in the dark, is that the answer to my question to Dusty about who is getting the domestic spending money that the Republicans want to cut, is simple: The people, the Americans.”
And where is it coming from: The people, the Americans.
Another attempt at gaining the moral high road by “taking” from others……go figure.
loco
December 18th, 2012
5:34 pm
md
Pretty broad brushes you post there. Adjusted for inflation, didn’t Bob Dole sponsor one of the largest tax increases in history? Maybe I am mistaken.
Didn’t Reagan have six years of a Republican Senate were he along with Democrats in the House kept spending, lowered then raised taxes numerous times?
You are either disingenuous or uninformed? I say disingenuous because you are a smart little fella.
Please come back with the Reagan had a Democrat House shtick then explain how spending his still going up with a Republican House today.
Thanks
loco
December 18th, 2012
5:37 pm
@@
I could be wrong, but I see an agreement that will play out over the next few months that will have many on the far right and left perturbed.
Will it be the end all of end all in regards to needed changes? I doubt it, but I do see both-sides doing something.
We will see
Just Saying..
December 18th, 2012
5:40 pm
Kyle, the… “whole”… idea of a tax rate increase is arbitrary.
…”ZERO”… revenue will be raised by this, unless deductions and loopholes are also addressed.
This …”entire”… exercise is a political game, and has …”noting”… to do with economics, revenue or spending.
Tib, you seem to an absolutist sorta guy…
Just Saying..
December 18th, 2012
5:44 pm
“I say disingenuous because you are a smart little fella.”
loco, I’m relieved you included that. md needs to be addressed with esteem…
loco
December 18th, 2012
5:44 pm
md
Did six years of a Republican Congress and WH under Bush bring on lowering spending? yes you can say well spending is worse now, but that is not the question……..
Did it bring on less spending is the question? Seems your assertions are more hyperbole than reality.
But you talk a good game. Didn’t the Republicans have “choices” during those six years? Did their “choices” meet your assertions?
md
December 18th, 2012
5:44 pm
Where did I say the R’s don’t do it too? They do, and that was a big problem under Bush, but the D’s have done it as long as I’ve been alive, their very ideology is based on it.
loco
December 18th, 2012
5:46 pm
just saying
Exactly. he speaks with absolutes when he is talking about what he doesn’t like, but does a great semantics tap dance when he has to defend those absolutes and how it applies to those he votes for
Very funny to read……. and a smooth tap dance I must say
Hillbilly D
December 18th, 2012
5:47 pm
If I were in Boehner’s shoes, I’d give Obama his tax deal but only with guaranteed spending cuts, amounting to a the same dollar figure as the increase.
Kyle Wingfield
December 18th, 2012
5:48 pm
MarkV @ 5:30: “I do not know that you mean by arguing that “the absolute number is lower for spending cuts.” ”
The total amount of the tax increase is generally being discussed as anywhere from $1T to $1.3T over 10 years. The total amount of the immediate spending cuts — as opposed to the future reduced rates of entitlement spending — is less than $500B over 10 years. $1T > $500B.
“it is also completely irrelevant if they are “Washington-style spending cuts.” ”
No, it’s not. The Washington approach to spending cuts is to spend $1 in 2012 and then debate whether to spend $1.02 or $1.04 in 2013. No one in that scenario is talking about spending less. Again, without getting into a debate about the economic efficacy of public spending, in no sense is either $1.02 or $1.04 less than $1. (We are almost always talking about inflation-adjusted figures, so no need to go there, either.)
Thus, if we are not talking about actual spending cuts, it is your point — “whose hands will feel the spending cuts?” — that is irrelevant.
loco
December 18th, 2012
5:49 pm
md
Republican as well, they just have brainwashed you that it is just the other side……
If not, tell me when they have governed differently on a national scale. Talk is cheap, tell me about the walk when they have been in charge.
Under 12 years of Reagan and Bush, was the President’s proposed budget smaller than what Congress agreed on 10 out of 12 times or larger?
md
December 18th, 2012
5:49 pm
As for past tax hikes, how many were done with an underlying tone of division such as they are now? Didn’t the rates go up on everybody and down on everybody?
50% pay zero income tax right now, having no skin in the game but still being allowed to play is a big problem in my book.
loco
December 18th, 2012
5:54 pm
md
Spin it like a top. Absolutes when you talk about the other side, but semantics and such when you have to defend your side. You do good at chasing your tail.
Part of the 50% not paying is due to the EITC. Didn’t Bush enhance that? Is he now a Dem? Didn’t a Repub sign the EITC into law?
They can revamp the EITC today for all I care and phase in rates back to the Clinton years and you will see that 50% of those not paying decrease in a hurry.
I’m good with it. Dems and Repubs both are not, but I am.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 18th, 2012
5:54 pm
Sorry, children (I’m addressing Just Saying and loco here), but I’m a REALIST.
Of course, you can provide appropriate contrary arguments to mine, but if you had them, you would have already used them.
Just Saying..
December 18th, 2012
5:54 pm
Rafe “Pride goeth before the fall!”
Rafe, is that addressed to POTUS Romney?
Because you NEVER said Mittens would win.
Did ya?
loco
December 18th, 2012
5:56 pm
md
Did the government shrink under Nixon, Ford, Reagan or the Bushes?
Michael H. Smith
December 18th, 2012
5:57 pm
Um… don’t look now socialist liberals but there is a Plan C a.k.a. John Galt:
As in “C”, for Contagion!
Actor Renounces His Citizenship in Snit Over French Tax Burden
PARIS — Gérard Depardieu, the famous French actor, will be French no more, so exasperated is he with French taxes and the French government, he declared in an angry open letter to France’s prime minister on Sunday.
Mr. Depardieu, who has been accused by France’s Socialist government of abandoning the country to avoid paying taxes, will be giving up his French citizenship and taking up residence over the border in Belgium, he wrote. Mr. Depardieu insisted that his move was not solely for tax reasons, but also because he felt the government believed that “success, creation, talent — difference, in fact — must be punished.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/world/europe/gerard-depardieu-says-he-is-giving-up-french-citizenship.html?_r=0
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 18th, 2012
5:58 pm
loco likes to live in the past and blame others.
Most of us are worried about the future here, loco.
loco
December 18th, 2012
6:02 pm
Tiberius
Don’t really care what you are worried about?
I know that “Colors you shocked”
Just Saying..
December 18th, 2012
6:04 pm
“What is the motive of your whining Dusty?”
Dusty’s miffed that, after her “Rise Up” cheerleader rant, her GOP heroes found a way for Georgia taxes to enhance the value of my Falcons seats.
But it’ll work out, Dust. I’ll consider buying a Bushmaster with the additional profit..
Just Saying..
December 18th, 2012
6:08 pm
Hillbilly, if you were in Boehner’s shoes, you’d be wishing you never heard of the Tea Party…
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 18th, 2012
6:11 pm
So it appears that the appropriately named “loco” has no interest in balancing the budget.
Just attacking other posters.
Always looking backwards to blame.
Never looking forward to solve a problem.
That’s all we get from the libs of this generation – “It’s not our fault”.
md
December 18th, 2012
6:15 pm
Well loco, do tell as to which party is currently trying to raise taxes and which party is trying to cut spending……….
loco
December 18th, 2012
6:15 pm
md
And those low ranked enlisted serving in the military thank you for calling them out for not paying taxes…..
Along with those who served but now on disability because they were protecting you a$$ but do not pay federal income taxes also thank you…….
The list is longer than that, but those are at the top who want to thanks your thankless little behind…………
loco
December 18th, 2012
6:15 pm
Cry on Tibs
Hillbilly D
December 18th, 2012
6:15 pm
I wish I’d never heard of a lot of things but as they say, wish in one hand……….
Just Saying..
December 18th, 2012
6:17 pm
“Most of us are worried about the future here, loco.”
Like maybe taking the 2nd Amendment into the 21st century?
loco
December 18th, 2012
6:17 pm
md
Ryan’s budget was cutting spending? His own budget would have required him to vote for numerous spending ceiling increases
Are you that dense or just act that way on this blog?
MarkV
December 18th, 2012
6:17 pm
Kyle Wingfield @ 5:48 pm
It appears that your misunderstanding of my point is shown in your following words: “Again, without getting into a debate about the economic efficacy of public spending…” Depending what your definition of “efficacy of public spending” is, most likely that is exactly what I was talking about, just as I would understand your words regarding the tax revenue being money “taken out of economy,” which I responded to, “economic efficacy of taxing. From that point of view, you cannot compare the size of tax cut with the size of spending cuts, because those are mostly apples and oranges. The issue, which I was addressing, was, essentially: What economic effect will have taking some money from the pockets of high earners, vs. giving less of the tax money to the low earners. What will the low earners do with the money, that otherwise would be cut: mostly spend on the essentials. I would argue that taking that money out of their pockets (which is essentially the same as not putting it in their pockets) hurts the economy more by reducing consumption, than lowering slightly the income of the high earners.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 18th, 2012
6:19 pm
We can’t do anything about spending that occurred under any previous president–just the current one. And it’s out of control by historic proportions. Sadly, the Moocher Majority won’t stand for a reduction in their monthly free candy allotment.
loco
December 18th, 2012
6:20 pm
md
Along with a 2.5% unemployment rate to even come close to working……………….
bwhahahahahahaahaha
Just Saying..
December 18th, 2012
6:22 pm
“I wish I’d never heard of a lot of things but as they say, wish in one hand……….”
THAT’S FUNNY!!
carlosgvv
December 18th, 2012
6:28 pm
Barry – 6:19
Sadly, you just keep spouting that con nonsense.
But, take heart!!!
Big Business and The Republican Party just couldn’t keep the profits and campaign cash coming in without athletic supporters like you.
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
December 18th, 2012
6:29 pm
MarkV
For what it is worth, I haven’t checked it out, but just saw a talking head economist asked YOUR question, “want spending cuts hurt the economy”. I didn’t get his name. He said sounds so in theory, but history shows that after significant cuts in government spending following WWII, spending in the private economy on goods and services more than made up for the loss of government spending. More money in private hands stimulates the economy, he said.
loco
December 18th, 2012
6:32 pm
Rafe
Sounds great, but Romney himself said that he would not cut spending much at all as long as the economy was fragile.
Look it up. His words, not mine
MarkV
December 18th, 2012
6:33 pm
Rafe Hollister @ 6:29 pm
Rafe,
As with your arguments about resistance to government tyranny, I am unimpressed by economic comparisons with different era.
MarkV
December 18th, 2012
6:39 pm
Rafe Hollister @ 6:29 pm
If I wanted to be more specific, I would cite the July 2008 testimony by Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody’s Economy.com, regarding the multiplier effect of various economic measures.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 18th, 2012
7:27 pm
Multiplier effect? Is that why the rate of GDP growth under Obozo has been so pathetic, even after blowing through $800 billion borrowed from China?
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 18th, 2012
7:28 pm
Where’s the multiplier effect of Obozo increasing spending by $700 billion per year, every year?
Fail.
Hillbilly D
December 18th, 2012
7:30 pm
An economist’s guess is liable to be as good as anybody else’s.
Will Rogers
md
December 18th, 2012
7:33 pm
“And those low ranked enlisted serving in the military thank you for calling them out for not paying taxes…..”
Is that supposed to be the guilt card?
Last I checked, we were ALL citizens and all lived here, so I see no problem with everybody having to pay some kind of minimum.
Old Timer
December 18th, 2012
7:34 pm
Obama has no intent of doing a compromise–he is an arrogant, narrcisist bully that want to be King. He doesn’t care aobut athe future of the United States. Voters that voted for him made a big mistake that they will find out in their life time.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 18th, 2012
7:36 pm
Can’t you just see Obozo and his minions sitting around late at night at the White House, trying to come up with some way of reducing spending? “There’s GOT to be a way!! Think, dammit!!”
Linda
December 18th, 2012
7:38 pm
President Football Lucy!
md
December 18th, 2012
7:38 pm
“Ryan’s budget was cutting spending? His own budget would have required him to vote for numerous spending ceiling increases”
Last I checked, Ryan’s budget wasn’t law, have things changed?
I’ll ask again, which side is currently pushing for divisive tax hikes and which side is advocating for equal tax treatment?
Which side is advocating for real spending cuts and which side is pushing gimmicky spending cuts.
Last I checked, we live in the present and the past can’t be changed, so what’s your answer?
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
December 18th, 2012
7:47 pm
MarkV
I am unimpressed by economic comparisons with different era.
I don’t live for the purpose of impressing you, I just thought it was ironic that you were asking the question on the blog at the same time some talking head economist was answering your question on the TV.
Your dismissal of evidence/facts/opinions/statements/predictions/etc that you do not agree with, and all your reasons not to believe it, is well known, but history tells us that those who don’t know, learn from, and respect history are sure to repeat it. It may be an error to dismiss things just because they occurred in another era, economics is the same no matter the era.
loco
December 18th, 2012
7:50 pm
Did you not vote for Ryan? When did you denounce his budget?
Lie now and say you were against it
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
December 18th, 2012
7:50 pm
Hillbilly
I agree with your post about the economists guess, pure waste of time, they prove that on a daily basis. However, most of them are qualified to look at history and see the effects on the economy of things that were done in the past.
loco
December 18th, 2012
7:53 pm
again md
You play your bs “choices” game like a robot, but when it comes to defending your own, you are the semantics king and make excuses after excuses
I hope you don’t teach your kids to make excuses when things do not meet their preconceived narrative as you do on this blog……..
disingenuous at best, deceitful at worst……….. either way, you are a trip
loco
December 18th, 2012
7:57 pm
md
You remind me of some ex addicts I have met……. Great that they have overcome their addiction, but sometimes they are one tract like a robot and can’t see the forest through the trees
If that what keeps them from their “addiction”, I say great, but it can be difficult to communicate with them when they are in that “zone”.
MarkV
December 18th, 2012
8:28 pm
Rafe Hollister @ 7:47 pm
It is noteworthy how you avoided to consider Mark Zandi’s current study while pushing whatever some economist, about whom I only heard from you, argued about a time many years ago, and at the same time you accused me of dismissing evidence/facts/opinions/statements/predictions I did not agree with.
Linda
December 18th, 2012
8:39 pm
It was the fault of the fed. govt. that the ‘08 recession happened by deeming that home ownership was a right, not a privilege, beginning with the Carter adm., doubling down during the Clinton adm. & agreed to by the Bush adm..
It was the fault of the fed. govt. that we can not fund Medicare, Social Security & Medicaid entitlements but added Obamacare to our list of programs we can never, ever afford.
It was the fault of the fed. govt. that ALL the funds in Medicare & Social Security were spent.
It was the fault of the fed. govt. that Medicare enhancement was not paid for.
It was the fault of the fed. govt. that wars were not paid for.
It is the fault of the fed. govt. that education has failed.
It is the fault of the fed. govt. that our borders are not secure.
It is the fault of the fed. govt. that jobs are being out-sourced.
It was the fault of the fed. govt. that spending is totally out of control.
It is the fault of the fed. govt. that the employment participation rate is at a record low since WW II.
It is the fault of the fed. govt. that govt. dependency is at an all time high & that the ease of qualification for eligibility is at an all-time low.
It is the fault of the fed. govt. that the fiscal cliff is upon us, both by the passage of the sequester & the inability to agree on the marginal tax rates.
It is the fault of the fed. govt. that we do not use our own natural resources for energy & promoting jobs, ending our reliance on foreign countries, decreasing our Oil Police & decreasing our energy prices.
When will both conservatives & liberals agree that the fed. govt. is not the savior of our future & that of the elderly, our veterans, our children, etc. but is rather the enemy of we, the people?
Hillbilly D
December 18th, 2012
8:52 pm
There’s a part of the banking meltdown that gets overlooked, especially here in Georgia. They changed it to where when you chartered a bank, you only had to wait 2 years before you could sell it. That brought a great influx of new banks. Very few of the new banks had any plan to serve the community or build a sustainable business. It was all about building up the cash value of the sucker as fast as they could, unload it on some sucker and make a killing. Most of them, at least in my area, loaned money like it was candy, often to their buddies to build subdivisions, etc. The more loans they had out, the better the bank looked on paper. Then the bubble busted and every local bank in my neck of the woods, save one, went belly up and/or got closed down by the FDIC. Even though a lot of loans were made using inflated collateral ( I know a lawyer who got wind of it and turned everything he had over to the authorities), nobody has been prosecuted and they are all still driving around in the Benz and living in the big house.
There’s plenty of blame to go around for that mess.
md
December 18th, 2012
8:58 pm
“Did you not vote for Ryan? When did you denounce his budget?”
I voted for Romney, and his budget never saw the light of day, so your point is moot.
As for choices, I once chose to be a democrat and moved away from an ideology that takes from those that have based on the sole criteria of “because they have it”, with no regard whatsoever of HOW it came to be.
Sorry, life doesn’t work that way.
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
December 18th, 2012
9:00 pm
MarkV
I didn’t avoid Zandi’s study, I just told you what I saw an economist say on TV. Now that you bring this up, I have researched Zandi and what he said. Just an opinion or prediction. Like Hillbilly said above an economist prediction is just about as good as yours. Here is some rebuttal, Zandi is not the only economist with an opinion/prediction about spending cuts. Zandi is apparently a big Keynesian, like Obama, and believed in the Stimulus, how did that work out?
Believe what you want!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/28/AR2011022802634.html
the opinion of Stanford University economist John B. Taylor, who argued that the macroeconomic models employed by Zandi, Goldman Sachs and many other independent forecasters — including the Congressional Budget Office — overstate the economic impact of government spending and ignore the boost to confidence that would come from reining it in.
Taylor also noted that CBO’s analysis of the GOP budget bill shows that it would only cut spending by $19 billion over the next seven months, with the remainder of the $61 billion in cuts taking effect in future fiscal years.
“Thus the cut in budget authority does not reduce spending “abruptly,” as the [Goldman Sachs] report assumes,” Taylor writes in his blog, Economics One. “Rather it is a quite gradual effect. Even if one used the flawed Keynesian multipliers implied by the report, the impact would be less than one-third what the report claims.”
Hillbilly D
December 18th, 2012
9:03 pm
I’m old fashioned. I believe that the key to a strong economy is a strong savings rate. Ours is not good and hasn’t been for about 40 years, at least.
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
December 18th, 2012
9:05 pm
Hillbilly@8:52 Amen! People in this area were falling all over themselves to get a piece of every new bank, not because they wanted to be bankers, they just wanted to be in on the proceeds of the sale.
JamVet
December 18th, 2012
9:05 pm
HD, thanks for the info.
Main Street/local banks, Wall Street and K Street all played BIG, BIG roles in the corporate assault on capitalism.
Greed has it consequences.
But to your point, liberty and justice for
allsome…loco
December 18th, 2012
9:05 pm
md
stay in the program buddy, stay in the program,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Congrats and good luck. Stay strong
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
December 18th, 2012
9:08 pm
Linda@8:39
As LBB said much earlier today, politicians created this mess and will not be the ones to clean it up.
The folks who buy the debt will eventually straighten it out.
loco
December 18th, 2012
9:10 pm
md
Don’t be a straight ticket voter. D or R, that is the mindless way
JamVet
December 18th, 2012
9:15 pm
…politicians…will not be the ones to clean it up.
Of course not; they’ve already taken their bribe money. So they take their marching orders from their paymasters, or monied interests, as Jefferson called them. Just you way you like it.
Sorry, life doesn’t work that way.
Nor with simplistic and trite explanations…
Rightwing troll
December 18th, 2012
9:22 pm
How are you lying old cranks doing tonight?…
Thulsa Doom
December 18th, 2012
9:35 pm
Well this is interesting. I come over to check things out and there is an adult discussion on economics. Its definitely the adult table.
Linda
December 18th, 2012
9:36 pm
Russia will end up with Alaska.
Mexico all but owns California already.
China wants the Indian Reservations & Nevada.
Brazil will be happy with whatever is left of Illinois.
Japan is getting Washington, DC & the state of Washington mixed up but will settle for either or both.
The fed. govt. is already buying its own debt & thinks it can spend its way into prosperity by pushing wheelbarrows of newly printed money into the streets of Wall Street, which will be consumed, along with most of NY, by the oil suppliers, primarily Saudi Arabia & its Sharia Law.
We’ll be melted Greece with no one to bail us out.
The liberals, in the meantime, wonder why shrewd conservatives are buying guns.
Hillbilly D
December 18th, 2012
9:41 pm
Russia will end up with Alaska.
My belief is that the next 50-100 years, this country will go the way of the Soviet Union. It’ll probably split up into 8 or 9 different countries. My guess is probably Texas, Alaska and Hawaii would go their own way and the others sort of split into regional groups.
No matter what though, as long I’m breathing, I’m staying right here. My loyalty is to my family and the land. So no matter what the government does or doesn’t do, I ain’t going no damn where.
ODD OWL
December 18th, 2012
9:46 pm
If wage earners who’s Household income is $250.000 a year are not rich, then what category would you place wage earners who’s household income is $51.000 a year, the national average ??? I guess households that earn the national average should be classified as being poor, subsistent and poverty ridden… The 47% ??? $250.000 a year in income is above the pay grade of all the commenters in this blog site… Share the wealth, tax the rich, pay down the debt…
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 18th, 2012
9:49 pm
Rafe: The folks who buy the debt will eventually straighten it out.
————————–
And it’s going to hurt. Folks dependent on the government will be getting a pay cut.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 18th, 2012
9:52 pm
Share the wealth, tax the rich, pay down the debt
———————-
Taxing the rich won’t fix more than 10% of Obozo’s deficit, much less paying down any debt.
It’s just math.
Obozo’s lying to you chump receptacles, and you just lap it up out of ignorance or irrational belief in the magic of Barry Obozo.
md
December 18th, 2012
9:53 pm
“Nor with simplistic and trite explanations…”
And Merry Christmas to you too…….
ODD OWL
December 18th, 2012
10:07 pm
When the Republicans are in power, they borrow and spend like drunken sailors… But when they’re not in power, they gallivant around yelling cut spending, cut spending… Republicans ==> Pusillanimous hypocrites…
native
December 18th, 2012
10:11 pm
Many here seem to be economic illiterates. Being a millionaire has nothing with what you earn, it measures wealth. Most people I know (we’ve been around awhile) are millionaires because we have saved for many years.
Anyone making $250K+ will be a millionaire pronto if they don’t squander it. So stop the sobbing.
Linda
December 18th, 2012
10:21 pm
If a couple earning $250,000 a year lives in NY or CA, pays $15,000 per year in rent, utilities, groceries & state & city taxes, has a kid or two in college & takes care of an elderly parent or two, it’s possible that such a couple has not a dime to their name.
It’s possible that a couple earning $51,000 per year is much wealthier than a couple earning $250,000 per year.
Unfortunately, taxes are based on income, not wealth. Liberals who participate in class warfare are useful idiots to the Democratic agenda.
Linda
December 18th, 2012
10:22 pm
I meant $15,000 per month.
Thulsa Doom
December 18th, 2012
10:24 pm
I guess odd owl doesn’t understand that their aren’t enough rich people to tax to pay down the debt.
native
December 18th, 2012
10:33 pm
OK, Linda, I live in a low tax state. But we are still different from them: We make more money. They are not richer. Quit whining. I have three children in college.
The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers
December 18th, 2012
11:11 pm
JamVet
December 18th, 2012
9:05 pm
HD, thanks for the info.
Main Street/local banks, Wall Street and K Street all played BIG, BIG roles in the corporate assault on capitalism.
Greed has it consequences.
Yes it does. Come try and take my bushmaster mono e mono meat.
MarkV
December 18th, 2012
11:24 pm
Rafe Hollister @ 9:00 pm
Rafe,
You can play one economist against another as much as you want. Neither of us, as far as I can tell, has the qualifications to decide, which analysis is better. Considering that you cite one economist who, as you write, claims that “the macroeconomic models employed by Zandi, Goldman Sachs and MANY other independent forecasters — including the Congressional Budget Office – overstate the economic impact of government spending and ignore the boost to confidence that would come from reining it in,” (my emphasis) I find little reason to believe him. Naturally, I understand that you do, because it fits your preconception.
ODD OWL
December 19th, 2012
12:52 am
Millionaires are rich… Billionaires are wealthy…The rich and the wealthy will pay a 40% Federal income tax rate, a 40% capital gain tax rate and a 40% inheritance tax rate… We Dems call it the 40-40-40 tax plan…. The Republicans ran up the debt by borrowing trillions of dollars and giving it to the rich and the wealthy as tax cuts… Now we Democrats are going to pay down the Republican debt by taxing those same rich people and wealthy people who made out like fat rats over the last 30 years… If tax increases are inevitable, the rich and the wealthy should bend over, assume the position, relax and enjoy it… All entitlement social programs are off the debt/deficit negotiating table…
@@
December 19th, 2012
6:19 am
My loyalty is to my family and the land.
One of my favorite sayings from Jim Wooten….”People move, dirt doesn’t.”
That’s not to say Hillbilly is like dirt, mind you…
(ISH)
more like the foundation on which he stands doesn’t shift. It’s solid.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 19th, 2012
6:23 am
The stench from posters like ODD OWL makes you wonder if he ever worked a day in his life.
Probably not.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 19th, 2012
6:47 am
Real Americans are ashamed that our government has become so greedy that it takes more than 10% from any citizen.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 19th, 2012
7:14 am
ODD OWL doesn’t even realize that it would take a vote in the U.S. House to make his 40-40-40 plan into law, and the Dems STILL don’t control the House.
And likely won’t for another decade.
CC
December 19th, 2012
7:15 am
“The stench from posters like ODD OWL makes you wonder if he ever worked a day in his life.”
The stench of ODD OWL makes me certain that he is at least a socialist and maybe a communist.
CC
December 19th, 2012
7:20 am
“For there to be a king there must be peasants. Peasants aren’t defined by their wealth but by their belief that others should rule them.”
“Generally speaking peasants believe as they do either because they have been taught since birth that the King is better than they are or because without the King they feel they would not survive in a dangerous world. While America was founded by the antithesis of peasants, liberals have been working to reestablish the peasant class because liberals view themselves as the modern nobility; wiser, kinder, more knowing than the folk in flyover country and obligated by their superiority to rule over others. We see this when Obama complains about having to deal with Congress, even a Congress run by his own party, or when Obama says he’s envious of how the Chinese leader rules China.”
Rightwing troll
December 19th, 2012
7:22 am
That’s rich… Tibs, who apparently doesn’t have a job since he lives here ALL day, speculating about someone else’s employment status… You a moocher Tibs? You get a gubbimint check from your service in gubbimint? ( that’s another irony in itself…)
Rightwing troll
December 19th, 2012
7:23 am
Actually thanks to you and your ilks, its looking pretty likely in the next cycle or two…
CC
December 19th, 2012
7:40 am
“ilks”?
New word?
ride or die
December 19th, 2012
7:45 am
rw troll
Let these lonely bloggers have their fun and predictions.
Many thought that there was going to be a President Romney, so it is certainly a hoot to read their posts.
Mr Self-Righteous
December 19th, 2012
7:51 am
Don’t know about this cliff or where it is located. Just want the party that doesn’t make me work to stay in the WH. Does anyone know if they plan to extend my benefits or make new ones for me so I don’t have to work or be accountable? Also, my wife votes for them because she’s a big thinker and considers all the important issues facing us before casting votes exclusively for democrats. Her only issue is being able to abort, so she votes for democrats for this reason. She has her priorities straight. The 20 Trilion debt is not a problem because BO can just print more and give us some. It’s somebody else’s fault anyway according to those people on MSNBC; they seem to know a lot.
David Puddy
December 19th, 2012
7:56 am
“Many thought that there was going to be a President Romney, so it is certainly a hoot to read their posts.”em
Wrong, most republicans knew it was a long shot given the perception that those licking the gravy bowls would never risk having anything free taken from them. And the female vote was lost due to their complex approach to voting decisions–Who let’s us abort if we decide to be irresponsible? It’s really not that hard to figure out.
ride or die
December 19th, 2012
7:59 am
Guess ole Dave doesn’t read the comments from the regulars here
So Dave, you are wrong.
Nice try, buddy
Jefferson
December 19th, 2012
8:02 am
You can tell the GOP supporters are scared to stand on their own two feet, they want daddy bucks to trickle on them.
David Puddy
December 19th, 2012
8:05 am
Ride or die,I suppose you’ve made that general conclusion by reading postings from a handful of pro-republican posters? What a simpleton. Keep on licking the gravy bowl.
David Puddy
December 19th, 2012
8:08 am
“You can tell the GOP supporters are scared to stand on their own two feet, they want daddy bucks to trickle on them.”
Really? Is that the perception you have of GOP supporters based on your listening to Maddow and Matthews. What a simpleton. Gosh, you’re easy.
ride or die
December 19th, 2012
8:12 am
Dave is having a Piddy party
hope he will be ok
His ODS is flaring up again.
ride or die
December 19th, 2012
8:13 am
David “silly” Puddy
Thanks for the chuckles, little fella
David Puddy
December 19th, 2012
8:29 am
ride or die, you used the word ‘chuckles’? and ‘fella’ in the same sentence? Weird.
Chinese Military Man
December 19th, 2012
8:38 am
United States ban on semi automatic weapons – check.
US ban on large capacity magazine clips – check.
US ban on hollow point ammunition – check.
US nuclear “treaty” with Russia – check, check, high five.
US naval fleet reduction in size – check, check, check, moonwalk.
US re election of barakkk obozo – check, check, check, check, check, leaps of joy, hugging and weeping tears of appreciation for such good fortune.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
December 19th, 2012
8:51 am
David – I’m figuring that ride is a mere child or at least has the mental capacity of one.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
December 19th, 2012
8:53 am
“Systematic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place,” the panel said.
Ah, it sounds like we need to hit the reset button.
Lying Old Cranky Troll
December 19th, 2012
8:57 am
Heh… the zingers are flying in here now…
ride or die
December 19th, 2012
9:22 am
Aesop the “reporter”
Angry, lonely and whiney he is…
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
December 19th, 2012
9:28 am
You’re welcome to dazzle us with your vast knowledge and intelligence at anytime, rider, but up to this point, we’ve seen like, eh, not much.
But you are a good diaper filler.
Black Label
December 19th, 2012
9:34 am
Aesop
That kid has you whining like a little puppy. He posts you whine and yelp
How funny is that. Aesop is the new Pavlov’s dog.
Jimbo
December 19th, 2012
9:43 am
rich or die, you seem to be the only one who knows something here. Please let me know which party I should vote for to keep getting benefits and not have to work. And my wife was wanting to know which one let’s you abort in case she doesn’t want to be responsible. Please let me know.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
December 19th, 2012
9:48 am
It looks like you heard a bell ring, labeled. But that’s somehow different, right? You see yourself as special, very special, and able to respond to anyone, at anytime. But nobody else is allowed to do the great things that labeled does, because they are no where near as special as labeled is. Oh, excuse me, very special.
Black Label
December 19th, 2012
10:07 am
Pavolv’s new dog keeps on the tradition
he can’t help it…………. The bitterness and frustration is much too entrenched.
Just Saying..
December 19th, 2012
10:30 am
From the AJC: “Pres. Obama is Time’s “Person of the Year”
Why, the United States IS an exceptional country…
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
December 19th, 2012
10:39 am
How long has it been since Time magazine was relevant to anyone besides a thumb sucking liberal?
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
December 19th, 2012
10:45 am
Only because we have a bunch of klowns running our country are we privileged enough to see comedy such as this, pile out of the klown car, obozobots -
Report blames Libyan guards hired to protect compound…
Were on Strike in ‘Protest Over Salary, Working Hours’…
And what’s even more funny, all the union goons hanging around this blog are like what, our enemy has to eat too.
ride or die
December 19th, 2012
10:46 am
Black Label
Cut Aesop a break.
Mind you his name should be “Aesop: My life is crying and whining”, but he is lonely and likes to vent on the blog…
Hehehehe
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
December 19th, 2012
10:47 am
Now I’m starting to see the libs and their Protect American Schools Act, which will consist of taking guns away from law abiding citizens and having some mass murderers guard the schools.
We wouldn’t want to discriminate against mass murderers, now would we?
Just Saying..
December 19th, 2012
10:53 am
Aesop, I’m not sure you’re a proud American…
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
December 19th, 2012
10:54 am
The implications of course being that rider sees it’s comments as some Important Public Service, hahhahahaha.
Oh my, what klowns.
breckenridge
December 19th, 2012
10:57 am
They’re making progress on a fiscal deal but whatever they come up won’t be nearly enough. More entitlement reform has to occur. So Obama is a 400K for 39.x% tax rate, Boehner is a $1 million. Perhaps 500K would be appropriate. 250K is simply far too low.
Bloomberg did a poll a few months back. They found that 60% of the wealthy do not object to a higher tax rate. Which simply means they don’t mind paying their accountants to dig deeper for more loopholes.
ride or die
December 19th, 2012
10:57 am
Black Label
You called. He can’t help himself.
What else does he have in life?
Wa wa wa
Just Saying..
December 19th, 2012
11:01 am
Gotta love the GOP side of the table: “We require bigger budget cuts. Just not as big as the ones we’ve already passed”.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
December 19th, 2012
11:03 am
What else does he have in life?
ride – Your first comments this morning appeared at 7:51 am. Mine came at 8:58. I could almost accuse you of “having less of a life” than I do but I won’t, because I don’t see myself as …………special.
Plus I’m not a psychotic.
Dusty
December 19th, 2012
11:09 am
Well, Just Saying, you are correct. The United States IS an exceptional country. Yes, and its citizens are special.
Did you see where several people (one from Atlanta) have sent contributions to the people of Newtown,Connecticut who are trying to overcome their losses. Free coffee and candy from far away for hundreds of those citizens just to make a gesture of caring for sad and disconsolate people… .
Yep, .Americans have warm hearts even though we fuss. .
Black Label
December 19th, 2012
11:10 am
ride or die
I would give it a break if you do not want to see Aesop break. He has had that tendency in the past and gets sent packing for a period of time or even longer.
Enjoy the laughs. His attitude and character never changes no matter his attempt disguise it.
Good day
Kyle Wingfield
December 19th, 2012
11:21 am
“They found that 60% of the wealthy do not object to a higher tax rate. Which simply means they don’t mind paying their accountants to dig deeper for more loopholes.”
Bingo, breckenridge.
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
December 19th, 2012
11:35 am
The fiscal cliff and inability to protect our diplomats must not be that troubling to our elected officials. Galloway has an column boasting about bipartisanship, because Lynn Westmoreland found a Dem he could work with to get a bill passed to help define what type refrigerator a deli can legally use.
Our government is so big and polarized that they can’t ever solve any major problem, but there is no insignificant/minor matter they can’t find time to deal.with. Only in America, do we parry over refrigeration rights.
HDB
December 19th, 2012
11:36 am
Lil’ Barry Bailout – OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 18th, 2012
1:58 pm
Actually, the first trillion dollar deficit was in FY2009…the LAST year of the Bush fiscal plan…….
Jimbo
December 19th, 2012
1:39 pm
“They found that 60% of the wealthy do not object to a higher tax rate. Which simply means they don’t mind paying their accountants to dig deeper for more loopholes.”
Representatives from both nitwit parties created them and allow them to exist today. Are taxpayers not supposed to minimize their tax burdens in accordance with the tax codes? Buffet, for all his blowhard calls for higher taxes, still uses every loophole/advantage he can get a death grip on.
Lambeau
December 19th, 2012
2:17 pm
Aesop @ 8:53
I agree a reset button would be quite nice. But don’t tell MarkV there was no protest (and that Obama blamed the “protest” on a video for weeks after the attack). He would just find a way to say that we “didnt understand” what he was saying. He can *never* be wrong. An “I told you so” statement would be very appropriate towards Mark.