• 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 ready to veto a bill blocking ‘fiscal cliff’ without tax hike for rich

apdst said:
That's what the Democrats used to support their oppossition the line item vetos.
Click to expand...

and used it effectively, too, it would appear
 
ecofarm said:
Why are dragons totally different than wood fairies.
Click to expand...

It would take too long to explain, and your head would likely explode, so I'm going to simply say this: Trust me, they are very different. :)
 
ecofarm said:
It's hoping for doomsday and violence.
Click to expand...

how do you know this to be the desire instead of hoping for government to act fiscally responsible?
 
justabubba said:
how do you know this to be the desire instead of hoping for government to act fiscally responsible?
Click to expand...

The specific language employed.
 
Tigger said:
It would take too long to explain, and your head would likely explode, so I'm going to simply say this: Trust me, they are very different. :)
Click to expand...

Can other people see the dragons?
 
The Democrats definitely have the upper hand in any negotiations over the fiscal cliff. The spending cuts are a brute instrument and certainly not the best way to enact them, but they hit Republican priorities a lot more than they hit Democratic priorities...they're largely aimed at the defense budget, and they completely exempt the three largest entitlements (social security, Medicare, Medicaid). Additionally, the tax increases will hit everyone, and supposedly the two parties agree that they don't want to hit the middle-class with tax hikes.

The reason that Obama can credibly threaten this veto is because inaction won't hurt the Democrats nearly as bad (from a policy perspective) as it will hurt the Republicans.
 
American said:
Obama has to veto it.
Click to expand...

I was basically answering your question...but your correct he has to veto this...especially after all the rhetoric thats gone on back and forth about taxs.
It may not make it to his desk, this is the third bill the house gop has put in to extend the bush tax cuts its never made it past the senate yet.
 
lpast said:
I was basically answering your question...but your correct he has to veto this...especially after all the rhetoric thats gone on back and forth about taxs.
It may not make it to his desk, this is the third bill the house gop has put in to extend the bush tax cuts its never made it past the senate yet.
Click to expand...

That's because Reid won't even bring it to the floor. Can't vote on something if it's not on the agenda.. :)


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
That's because Reid won't even bring it to the floor. Can't vote on something if it's not on the agenda.. :)


Tim-
Click to expand...


Cant say im mad at reid for doing that...but I think it was voted on up or down once and failed.
 
justabubba said:
specifically what language allowed you to come to that conclusion
Click to expand...

I'm not one who is "allowed to come to a conclusion", but one who is forced by simple logic and reason. I suppose others "allow" themselves to come to conclusions, but I've no idea what such evidence would look like.
 
Tigger said:
I think you might be surprised at the reaction when some people's taxes go up, and other people's support checks go down.
Click to expand...

The 2% cut didn't add buckets to my check so I doubt a 2% increase is going to take buckets out of my check. Support checks are irrelevant. They can apply whatever change retroactively so it really does not matter if it gets resolved in December or in July for the overall economy. I am, however, willing to weather the storm if nothing getting resolved. Sacrifice generally involves some unpleasantness.
 
ecofarm said:
I'm not one who is "allowed to come to a conclusion", but one who is forced by simple logic and reason. I suppose others "allow" themselves to come to conclusions, but I've no idea what such evidence would look like.
Click to expand...

appears you have nothing
dismissed, until you come back with the specific language you insisted allowed you to come to your bogus conclusion
 
So...question.



What ACTUALLY happens when we go over said fiscal cliff should nothing be resolved?


Can I take "Nothing" for 500, Bob?
 
KevinKohler said:
So...question.



What ACTUALLY happens when we go over said fiscal cliff should nothing be resolved?


Can I take "Nothing" for 500, Bob?
Click to expand...

payroll taxes go up 2%; mandatory cuts take place in what I believe have been said to be 1,000 programs but mostly defense department stuff it appears. From what I have read there is nothing immediate that will happen to the economy and there is no need to beat the deadline, but there is a fear that the longer term (say 8-12 months) result would be we would be pulled back into a recession. The sky won't fall or anything cool like that.
 
Sarcogito said:
Hmm, we'll see. He has made a habit of caving to the Republicans. I am skeptical at the idea of him playing hard ball.
Click to expand...

That's been my pet peeve with him as well... but seeing how after reelection in a couple weeks he won't be needing to run for election again along with having learned that there is no compromise with a party that flat out said "we will not compromise" on several occassions... my hopes are that his spine will stiffen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom