Insanity on display.Follow

Haha.. yeah, look at that guy actually talking about what he believes in! What a crazy jerk! Man, all the cool kids place secret holds and shit where they don't have to show any balls.

Yeah I listened to most of it throughout the day. Kudos to him for having the balls to stand there and talk all day without resorting to reading from a phone book or cook book.

I was a little surprised that Mary Landrieux took to the floor as well to support him.

To be fair, thief just said "liberal."

Get used to it. Now that the republicans are going to have the majority, the dem/independent block will be doing the filibustering.

I'm of the opinion that at this point, it'd be better off for the country if we let all the Bush era tax cuts expire as opposed to extending them all. Obviously Obama disagrees.

I said a thing and then I remembered another.

Edited, Dec 11th 2010 7:32am by Kavekk

"Better to help 98% of the population and increase our deficit yet again than ***** them and be correct when we blame it on partisanship."

Not saying I agree, but it's pretty obvious that that's his line of thinking.

Aside from the numerous polls showing support for letting the upper bracket cuts expire, that's an excellent line you've been taught to say.

"But.. but... those were the wrong polls!! If they were the magic polls I make up in my head, they'd support me!!"

So everyone was lying when they said they supported tax cuts expiring for the upper bracket?

Gee, here I'd have though it indicated that people voted Republican last cycle based on reasons other than "Let's preserve upper bracket tax cuts" but I guess not when faced with awesome logic like yours.


That and the magic "focus groups" in your imagination that told Obama exactly what you want to say they did. Got it.

Call it whatever makes you sleep better at night. What we have is a reality in which those polls didn't equate into votes. So it's not shocking that politicians who are elected based on the votes and not the poll results might just place a wee bit more weight on the voters.

You're free to speculate as to how or why that happened, but it's really not that relevant, is it?



/shrug

Then by all means, Obama should stick to his guns and push for allowing tax cuts to expire for the top 2%. Unless you're suggesting that Obama is insane or stupid, I would assume that he (or at least his advisers) thought of that one, and they decided to make a deal and extend tax cuts for everyone. Once again, the reality of politics doesn't match those polls you place such weight on!

One might start to conclude that maybe there's more to it than those polls. You know. Someone who isn't standing around with a bucket of sand on his head.



Um... Ok. Whatever floats your boat. You want to run around cherry picking data which supports your position? Great. But after the other guys say you're wrong, then run a campaign based on the belief you are wrong, then win said election by massive amounts, then your own guys start changing their position to match their's, you start to look pretty silly continuing to point at some opinion polls which seem to indicate that the "other guys" position is wrong.

Again, you're free to speculate as to *why* said polls don't seem to match the political reality, but that largely misses the point.

Hahahah... yeah, that must be it.

A simply MUST equal B because everyone know there were no other factors AT ALL in that election!


Indeed I am. Just as you are speculating. But your speculation fails to match any evidence besides "They got elected so I must be right because there's no other possible reason why they would have gotten elected but this!"


Nah, Obama cut a deal amounting to an additional stimulus when, otherwise, the GOP would have just filibustered, ran out the clock on all the cuts (including the middle class) until 2011 and then ran a bill only retroactively extending the cuts (with no unemployment extensions, etc) which would have been very hard for the Democrats to dork around with given that people need to file taxes soon. I know that's not as cut and dry and simple as your mind works but sometimes the world is more complicated that you seem to understand.


LOL "cherry picking". Cherry picking as in setting a grenade under a cherry tree and watching all those sweet, juicy data point come pouring down.

Edited, Dec 13th 2010 8:28pm by Jophiel

You're kidding, right?

This entire argument exists because the Democrats want to raise taxes on the wealthiest 2%. Just them. Not everyone, not them and some other people, but just them. Now, maybe you call it something else, but when I see someone specifically single out one portion of the population and take extra money from them, I tend to call it "hurting a specific 2%". What the hell else do you call that?


The point I was making is that the Democrats want so much to raise taxes on that 2% of the population that they are willing to hold the taxes for the other 98% hostage to that goal. See, if nothing is done taxes go up for all 100% of taxpayers. If we simply extend the existing bill, it stays the same for all 100% of the taxpayers. But the Dems want to raise taxes on the top 2%, so they're threatening to not extend the tax cuts for everyone unless some deal can be cut to raise it just on that 2%.


My statement above is that the reason Obama (and some Dems in congress) are shifting away from that goal is that they realize that they are running out of time. They can't get a bill passed to raise taxes on the 2% they want to raise taxes on, so their choices really are the following:

1. Let the tax cuts expire, and hope to get the tax plan they want next year. This means that taxes will go up for 100% of the people until some new as yet undefined legislation is passed.

2. Extend the tax cuts for everyone.


It's really a choice between ******** everyone over in order to ***** over the 2% you want, or accepting something which doesn't ***** anyone over (including that 2% you want to ***** over). The Dems (some of them) are starting to come around to the smarter of those two options.


Were you honestly confused about this?

Edited, Dec 14th 2010 7:36pm by gbaji

Lucky for my gardener and cleaner that I dont live in th US! Otherwise I'd be thinking of laying them off or moving to New Zealand about now....Oh. Wait.....

Saying the dems want to ***** the top 2% over is dishonest and stupid Gbaji. The dems think that we need more money, and they think that at the moment, those 2% are the best able to deal with it. No one wants to ***** over anyone.