• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama says Senate plan ‘only viable way’ to prevent tax hike

I, for one am tired of this delaying issue. Obama has been in power now for three years. The first two with total control of the country. Nothing got done fiscally. The latest was the fiasco of delaying a vote on a fiscal issue, turning the decision over to a smaller congress, with the proviso that if nothing got done automatic cuts would happen. Now that does not seem acceptable, and so we must pass another delay so we can work it out.

Nothing got done fiscally? Not the expansion of TARP? Not the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act? Not the GM and Chrysler bailouts? Not Dodd-Frank?

You've got to be kidding.
 
Nothing got done fiscally? Not the expansion of TARP? Not the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act? Not the GM and Chrysler bailouts? Not Dodd-Frank?

You've got to be kidding.

I edited my post. It now reads that nothing got done fiscally except to spend more money we don't have.
 
[...] The House bill NEVER had a requirement that Obama approve the pipeline. Where do you get this stuff???
Ummm... from the House bill?

112TH CONGRESS -- 1ST SESSION
----------------
H. R. 3630
----------------
AN ACT to provide incentives for the creation of jobs, and for other purposes.


SEC. 1002. PERMIT FOR KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection (b), not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the President, acting through the Secretary of State, shall grant a permit under Executive Order 13337 [...] for the Keystone XL pipeline project [...]

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr3630eh/pdf/BILLS-112hr3630eh.pdf
 
Ummm... from the House bill?

Nice try, but you suffer from selective quoting. Next time read a little further:

(b) EXCEPTION.—
20 (1) IN GENERAL.—The President shall not be
21 required to grant the permit under subsection (a) if
22 the President determines that the Keystone XL
23 pipeline would not serve the national interest.
24 (2) REPORT.—If the President determines that
25 the Keystone XL pipeline is not in the national in1 terest under paragraph (1), the President shall, not
2 later than 15 days after the date of the determina3
tion, submit to the Committee on Foreign Relations
4 of the Senate, the Committee on Foreign Affairs of
5 the House of Representatives, the majority leader of
6 the Senate, the minority leader of the Senate, the
7 Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the
8 minority leader of the House of Representatives a
9 report that provides a justification for determina10
tion, including consideration of economic, employ11
ment, energy security, foreign policy, trade, and en12
vironmental factors.
 
[...] Obama has been in power now for three years. The first two with total control of the country. [...]
Is that what Rush told you? :lamo
 
Is that what Rush told you? :lamo

I don't listen to Rush, but you are correct. I should have said - Control of the House, the Senate, and the Administration.

Total control of the country would include me, and as yet, that hasn't happened.
 
Nice try, but you suffer from selective quoting. Next time read a little further: [...]
Reading further does nothing to support your contention that "The House bill NEVER had a requirement that Obama approve the pipeline. "

Clearly the bill does have that requirement. That it also has a loophole, that the Republicans might want to argue about, does not mean the requirement does not exist.

The sum of the language is that Obama must approve the pipeline unless he comes up with a pre-defined excuse (national interest), which he must explain to congress.

If you want to read a little further, you'll also see that if Obama does nothing, then the pipeline becomes approved automatically. Is the intent of this language really all that hard to decipher?
 
Last edited:
Did Dems have total control of the House and Senate the first 2 years ?
No. Total control of the Senate requires 60 votes (to overcome filibuster). Come on... you guys know this, why keep trotting out the intellectually dishonest talking points which have long ago been debunked?
 
Did Dems have total control of the House and Senate the first 2 years ?

No they didn't. With the filibuster, the GOP was able to stymie every bill they wanted to in the Senate, so they effectively had control of it.
 
Come on... you guys know this, why keep trotting out the intellectually dishonest talking points which have long ago been debunked?

Intellectually dishonest talking points. You mean points like "The GOP doesn't know the value of $40?," or that the top 1% don't pay taxes? Intellectual dishonesty is a nice way of putting it. Just pertaining to the current OP, the entire issue has little to do with the extension of the payroll tax cut. Sentiment across the aisle is that the payroll tax cut must be extended.

The arguments within the House and Senate have to do with the REST of the bill. All the stuff that has been crammed into it, making it an argument about entitlement reform rather than payroll taxes. And they all know this, but what is presented to the people is that the GOP are trying to increase people's taxes. This is simply not true. It is more than intellectually dishonest... it is an affront to the intelligence of Americans- as if they can't can't see through the smoke and mirrors. And the sad part is, the president's base can't see through it. Which is why the dishonesty is such an effective political tool for this president.
 
Reading further does nothing to support your contention that "The House bill NEVER had a requirement that Obama approve the pipeline. "

Clearly the bill does have that requirement. That it also has a loophole, that the Republicans might want to argue about, does not mean the requirement does not exist.

The sum of the language is that Obama must approve the pipeline unless he comes up with a pre-defined excuse (national interest), which he must explain to congress.

If you want to read a little further, you'll also see that if Obama does nothing, then the pipeline becomes approved automatically. Is the intent of this language really all that hard to decipher?

If the Keystone issue is so rancorous why did the Senate’s version of the tax extension include a similar up/down decision provision? Also, consider the Senate passed this version on a pretty hefty consensus from both sides…something like 89-10.
 
Intellectually dishonest talking points. You mean points like "The GOP doesn't know the value of $40?," or that the top 1% don't pay taxes? [...]
I was speaking of what was being presented here, by people here.

[...] what is presented to the people is that the GOP are trying to increase people's taxes. This is simply not true.
It has a element of truth. The GOP has been trying to reduce (or maintain) the tax load of the wealthy while trying to increase the tax load on the middle class and the poor -- such as all those intellectually dishonest claims from the right about the bottom 47% not paying any federal income taxes being an affront to 'fairness'.

Other examples are the so-called 'fair tax', which would increase the tax load on the poor while arguably reducing the tax load on the rich, as well as the so-called 'flat tax' which would increase the tax load on the poor, and of course the now defunct (I suppose) Herman Cain 9-9-9 plan. So yes, definitely, if you are on the lower end of the income spectrum then the GOP is indeed trying to increase your taxes -- often at the benefit of the rich.
 
Reading further does nothing to support your contention that "The House bill NEVER had a requirement that Obama approve the pipeline. "

Clearly the bill does have that requirement. That it also has a loophole, that the Republicans might want to argue about, does not mean the requirement does not exist.

The sum of the language is that Obama must approve the pipeline unless he comes up with a pre-defined excuse (national interest), which he must explain to congress.

If you want to read a little further, you'll also see that if Obama does nothing, then the pipeline becomes approved automatically. Is the intent of this language really all that hard to decipher?

I really can't believe you had the nerve to type this. This is one of the most moronic replies I've ever seen.

Try and grasp this:

Obama must approve the pipeline, UNLESS he doesn't want to. If he doesn't approve it, he has to tell Congress why. He can not approve it for any reason he feels like, tell Congress why, and then tell them to go pound sand if they don't like it.

I fully expect Obama to NOT approve the pipeline because he thinks he has to cowtail to his far left environmental base. Republicans simply wanted to force him to make a decision before the election because they will pound him with it if he doesn't approve it.

Why don't you simply admit you were 100% wrong and drop it.
 
If this payroll tax cut is "good policy" and should be extended, why isn't the rate cut to 0%?
 
I really can't believe you had the nerve to type this. This is one of the most moronic replies I've ever seen.

Try and grasp this:

Obama must approve the pipeline, UNLESS he doesn't want to. If he doesn't approve it, he has to tell Congress why. He can not approve it for any reason he feels like, tell Congress why, and then tell them to go pound sand if they don't like it.

I fully expect Obama to NOT approve the pipeline because he thinks he has to cowtail to his far left environmental base. Republicans simply wanted to force him to make a decision before the election because they will pound him with it if he doesn't approve it.

Why don't you simply admit you were 100% wrong and drop it.

In other words, it is -- ONCE AGAIN -- a juvenile political ploy. Republicans don't give a **** whether or not it's approved. They just want to throw it in Obama's face either way. Gee, I wonder why Democrats objected to it?

Unfortunately Republicans are badly off their game. The permit will be denied for the perfectly understandable reason that they didn't provide enough time to evaluate the project. Net result? Republicans look like idiots, again, environmentalists are happy, and the unions who support the pipeline will blame Republicans instead of Obama. Brilliant.
 
In other words, it is -- ONCE AGAIN -- a juvenile political ploy. Republicans don't give a **** whether or not it's approved. They just want to throw it in Obama's face either way. Gee, I wonder why Democrats objected to it?

Unfortunately Republicans are badly off their game. The permit will be denied for the perfectly understandable reason that they didn't provide enough time to evaluate the project. Net result? Republicans look like idiots, again, environmentalists are happy, and the unions who support the pipeline will blame Republicans instead of Obama. Brilliant.

Of course, and the American public will hear about the jobs Obama killed throughout the midwest, as well as in South Carolina, for the next 10 months.

Doesn't matter what the unions think, only what the members do. And there is often a big difference in the two.

And don't give me that holier than thou crap. You know the Dems do the same thing.
 
Of course, and the American public will hear about the jobs Obama killed throughout the midwest, as well as in South Carolina, for the next 10 months.

Doesn't matter what the unions think, only what the members do. And there is often a big difference in the two.

And don't give me that holier than thou crap. You know the Dems do the same thing.

They will hear about the jobs (few and temporary though they may be) that Republicans killed in their endless game of putting electoral politics above the good of the country. I'm really starting to think we may see a Democratic blowout in 2012.

Boehner's autobiography should be titled, "How to **** Up a Wet Dream".
 
[...] Why don't you simply admit you were 100% wrong and drop it.
It would be moronic for me to admit that I was wrong when your claim -- "The House bill NEVER had a requirement that Obama approve the pipeline." -- has been so clearly debunked.

"the president ... shall grant a permit ..."

Like, duh.

Sure, there is a loophole, which if utilized you can rest assured that the Republicans would try to dispute, render ineffective, and claim the president has not acted in accordance with the bill and therefore the pipeline permit is issued automatically (by additional text in the bill).

The word "shall" is an imperative. I can explain that further if you wish to dispute the import of that word. However, empty belligerent rhetoric such as you have provided above does not consist of reasoned argument, so as far as I'm concerned your claim is debunked, period. That you do not concur is irrelevant, since my participation in the debate is not to convince you, but to convince those on the sidelines.
 
They will hear about the jobs (few and temporary though they may be) that Republicans killed in their endless game of putting electoral politics above the good of the country. I'm really starting to think we may see a Democratic blowout in 2012.

Boehner's autobiography should be titled, "How to **** Up a Wet Dream".

You actually think that the public will blame Boehner for lost jobs if Obama kills the pipeline ????

Now that's a wet dream.
 
It would be moronic for me to admit that I was wrong when your claim -- "The House bill NEVER had a requirement that Obama approve the pipeline." -- has been so clearly debunked.

"the president ... shall grant a permit ..."

Like, duh.

Sure, there is a loophole, which if utilized you can rest assured that the Republicans would try to dispute, render ineffective, and claim the president has not acted in accordance with the bill and therefore the pipeline permit is issued automatically (by additional text in the bill).

The word "shall" is an imperative. I can explain that further if you wish to dispute the import of that word. However, empty belligerent rhetoric such as you have provided above does not consist of reasoned argument, so as far as I'm concerned your claim is debunked, period. That you do not concur is irrelevant, since my participation in the debate is not to convince you, but to convince those on the sidelines.

pssst.... if the bill "required" that he approve the pipeline, they would not have included a method for him NOT to approve it.

You are not accustomed to reading legalese are you. Shall does not mean one has to do a certain thing if there are exceptions included. Why is that so hard to grasp???

Here's another bit of information for you........ Doesn't matter if the Republicans, or anyone else, tried to dispute his decision. He and he alone has the final say. That can't be taken away from him by this bill or any other law. It also means he will have to face the consequences from the voters though.
 
I was speaking of what was being presented here, by people here.


It has a element of truth. The GOP has been trying to reduce (or maintain) the tax load of the wealthy while trying to increase the tax load on the middle class and the poor -- such as all those intellectually dishonest claims from the right about the bottom 47% not paying any federal income taxes being an affront to 'fairness'.

Other examples are the so-called 'fair tax', which would increase the tax load on the poor while arguably reducing the tax load on the rich, as well as the so-called 'flat tax' which would increase the tax load on the poor, and of course the now defunct (I suppose) Herman Cain 9-9-9 plan. So yes, definitely, if you are on the lower end of the income spectrum then the GOP is indeed trying to increase your taxes -- often at the benefit of the rich.

Everyone, I think, is attempting to make the system more fair.... I think the main difference is what your definition of fair is. I think fair is taking a flat percentage of what EVERYONE makes, while all the while working hard to contain spending so that the percentage stays as low as possible. If the tax code stands up to the Equal Protection clause- and is applied to EVERYONE the same way, then I think a good argument can be made that it is fair. If you take a higher percentage from the wealthy and use it to supplement tax cuts for the middle and lower class workers, how is that "fair?"
 
Back
Top Bottom