• 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!

Tentative agreement reached on tax cuts

I'm not surprised at the outcome, nor do I dislike any of the items that passed.

Two more years. That will put us at December 2012, after the presidential election. Obama is campaigning early it seems.

Another benefit of the tax extensions is it will produce more hiring. GOP businesses that laid people off and made the rest work twice as hard know that they didn't do themselves much good. Of course they would like to stick it out and not hire again until there is a Republican president, but the extended tax breaks might make it tempting to accelerate their business at this point in time (they can claim that it was a GOP move, even though their new guys haven't been seated yet, LOL).
 
Holy crap, this looks like a Republican "compromise".

By that I mean "We'll compromise by giving you what you want, just less of it". We'll give you tax cuts, just for less time then you'd like.

This is the type of compromises that always annoy me with republicans. We'll give you minimum wage, just less. We'll give you welfare, just less. We'll give you spending, just left. We'll give you healthcare, just less. Kind of nice to see that kind of "compromise" happening on the opposite side for once.

Well... as I recall a majority of Republicans voted against the Minimum Wage Act of 2007, and all Republicans voted against the healthcare bill (a fair decision in my opinion, if made for the wrong reasons).
 
You really don't get it do you? Or maybe you don't want to get it?

I DO NOT WANT VIOLENCE. I was hoping the battle between fascist corporatism and the rest of the people could be avoided and Obama would be the one to do that. But the events today tell me that we have just taken another step towards an inevitable showdown that could be very messy for everyone.

And people today - people like you Turtle - people who wallow in their own wealth and their own privilege and who attempt to have the rest of us serve you in a condition little better than serfdom, only make this more possible through their toadies in the Republican party and through the spread of the disease of libertarian thought and ideology.

Understand me - I hope it never comes to that because it will be a terrible thing to witness. It makes me sad to admit that we have taken a step closer to this today.

It doesn't make sense to raise anyone's taxes during this horrendous recession. Period. If you want to know why there's class warfare in this country, simply look at our entitlement programs. They are repressing the poor just as surely as slavery did. As to some kind of Armageddon, fuggitaboutit.
 
Holy crap, this looks like a Republican "compromise".

By that I mean "We'll compromise by giving you what you want, just less of it". We'll give you tax cuts, just for less time then you'd like.

This is the type of compromises that always annoy me with republicans. We'll give you minimum wage, just less. We'll give you welfare, just less. We'll give you spending, just left. We'll give you healthcare, just less. Kind of nice to see that kind of "compromise" happening on the opposite side for once.

I think you are confused about what a compromise is. Don't feel bad, republicans have had that confusion for awhile. Compromise is not staking out the most extreme position and refusing to vote for anything less than it(crying "core values" about everything does not make it true), and then complaining about a lack of bipartisanship(see stimulus, health care), it involves each side actually giving something. This is the first time in 2 years I have seen republicans actually compromise.
 
well, mcconnell/boehner hardly gave up much

a 13 month extension of UE's, which anyone with a heart (or a nose for politics) can get behind

in return, we got pretty much all we wanted from the president's surrender

the bush cuts, all of em

our version of the death tax, verbatim

and a 2% reduction in payroll taxes, an open handed gift from obama, himself, which we didn't even ask for

hey, why compromise when you can get pretty much all you want without, y'know, caving?

seeya at the polls

the electoral chess board is newly configured---look for this issue to be central in 2012

my side will campaign, as always, on tax cuts for all americans

obama will advocate for taxing the rich

but who will believe him?

congrats, obama/mcconnell/boehner

it's your move, ms nancy
 
well, mcconnell/boehner hardly gave up much

a 13 month extension of UE's, which anyone with a heart (or a nose for politics) can get behind

in return, we got pretty much all we wanted from the president's surrender

the bush cuts, all of em

our version of the death tax, verbatim

and a 2% reduction in payroll taxes, an open handed gift from obama, himself, which we didn't even ask for

hey, why compromise when you can get pretty much all you want without, y'know, caving?

seeya at the polls

the electoral chess board is newly configured---look for this issue to be central in 2012

my side will campaign, as always, on tax cuts for all americans

obama will advocate for taxing the rich

but who will believe him?

congrats, obama/mcconnell/boehner

it's your move, ms nancy

You are correct. Obama surrendered. And that is very very sad.

I wish he truly had the same mean bitchy vindictive single minded ability to march his party in lockstep the way the GOP has.
 
Obama punted on third down. :confused:
 
I think you are confused about what a compromise is. Don't feel bad, republicans have had that confusion for awhile.

Oh no, I understand fully what compromise is. I also understand there's many various forms of it. Finding what you both agree on and focusing just on that can be compromise. Giving something to get something back is compromise. And yes, going along with something to make it "smaller" or "larger" in some form than it would probably be could also be compromise.

Compromise is not staking out the most extreme position and refusing to vote for anything less than it(crying "core values" about everything does not make it true), and then complaining about a lack of bipartisanship(see stimulus, health care), it involves each side actually giving something.

Indeed, compromise would be giving up on those "core values" and taking what you can get. Its actually precisely my issue with "Compromise" as I've said a number of times on this forum. Republicans typically are told to "compromise" by basically continually moving AWAY from their ideal position and towards the Democrat ideal position. It rarely ever swings back the other way. The compromises that are proposed in many situations are generally "Democrats fully get what they want" or "Democrats get part of what they want". On the flip side, often for republicans its "What we want is moved away from hugely" or "What we want is moved away from slightly", however in many cases its rarely goes towards the Republican direction of things

Compromise also takes two sides, as does "core principles". When you know there are certain things that you agree on, and some things theo ther side hates, and rather than focus on what you agree on you dig your heels in and says "You're going to get on board or we're going to leave you behind, because the things you hate ARE going in" that's not exactly much different then blabbering about "core princples".

This is the first time in 2 years I have seen republicans actually compromise.

And there was no REASON for them to compromise in the past 2 years. Democrats had their nuts in a vice by having majority power in all three places. The "compromises" usually extolled were token gestures or slight reductions of some things, in attempts to be able to claim "bipartisanship" and swing the blame if it fails from themselves singularly.

The Republicans would've gained nothing of worth from the type of compromise that Democrats actually showed they were interested in. The Republicans constitutents would've gained nothing of worth from the type of compromise that the Democrats actually showed they were interested in. And from the view point of Conservatives, the COUNTRY would've gained nothing of worth from the type of compromise that Democrats showed they were interested in.

So why do something that would actually...from your vantage point...do little to no good long term, and the damage of doing it both in the short term and long term would've been striking.

When the head of your party comes out pretty much right off, informs people that "they lost", gives them orders if they want to "get things done", and does a 24/7 tour of demonizing the other side the actions somewhat overshadow the hollow words being talked about with regards to "bipartisanship".

This is the first time the Democrats actually offered forth a worthwhile compromise, and the first time in a while that a compromise came down that was actually more beneficial...for the country, their constituents, and themselves in their minds...rather than harmful.
 
from apdst



Not the proper question at all. it should have been

How will the national Republican Party explain to the American people that they caused their taxes to be raised because they kiss the fat behinds of the rich?

The Dems could have run on that for a generation and won. But Obama threw away the trump card.

The Republicans aren't going to have to answer that question for two reasons: 1) everyone's taxes were raised and 2) Average Joe doesn't care what kind of taxes rich folks pay. He only cares about how much taxes he pays.

You have to remember, the only people that really give a **** about the taxes that rich folks pay, are the kook fringe Liberals.
 
I'm not surprised at the outcome, nor do I dislike any of the items that passed.

Two more years. That will put us at December 2012, after the presidential election. Obama is campaigning early it seems.

Another benefit of the tax extensions is it will produce more hiring. GOP businesses that laid people off and made the rest work twice as hard know that they didn't do themselves much good. Of course they would like to stick it out and not hire again until there is a Republican president, but the extended tax breaks might make it tempting to accelerate their business at this point in time (they can claim that it was a GOP move, even though their new guys haven't been seated yet, LOL).

Businesses laid people off, for political reasons? Please, tell us you're being sarcastic.

BTW, tax breaks aren't going to spur hiring. More customers purchasing goods and services is going to spur hiring.
 
Last edited:
from apdst



Not the proper question at all. it should have been

How will the national Republican Party explain to the American people that they caused their taxes to be raised because they kiss the fat behinds of the rich?

The Dems could have run on that for a generation and won. But Obama threw away the trump card.

The Republicans promised to keep taxes down for everyone, including small business owners and the uber rich job creaters. They did that.
They gave in to extending the unemployment for another 13 months! Which they will get grief over from some on the right. Geez, how much more do you people want to take from the workers and give to the non workers?
 
Oh no, I understand fully what compromise is. I also understand there's many various forms of it. Finding what you both agree on and focusing just on that can be compromise. Giving something to get something back is compromise. And yes, going along with something to make it "smaller" or "larger" in some form than it would probably be could also be compromise.



Indeed, compromise would be giving up on those "core values" and taking what you can get. Its actually precisely my issue with "Compromise" as I've said a number of times on this forum. Republicans typically are told to "compromise" by basically continually moving AWAY from their ideal position and towards the Democrat ideal position. It rarely ever swings back the other way. The compromises that are proposed in many situations are generally "Democrats fully get what they want" or "Democrats get part of what they want". On the flip side, often for republicans its "What we want is moved away from hugely" or "What we want is moved away from slightly", however in many cases its rarely goes towards the Republican direction of things

Compromise also takes two sides, as does "core principles". When you know there are certain things that you agree on, and some things theo ther side hates, and rather than focus on what you agree on you dig your heels in and says "You're going to get on board or we're going to leave you behind, because the things you hate ARE going in" that's not exactly much different then blabbering about "core princples".



And there was no REASON for them to compromise in the past 2 years. Democrats had their nuts in a vice by having majority power in all three places. The "compromises" usually extolled were token gestures or slight reductions of some things, in attempts to be able to claim "bipartisanship" and swing the blame if it fails from themselves singularly.

The Republicans would've gained nothing of worth from the type of compromise that Democrats actually showed they were interested in. The Republicans constitutents would've gained nothing of worth from the type of compromise that the Democrats actually showed they were interested in. And from the view point of Conservatives, the COUNTRY would've gained nothing of worth from the type of compromise that Democrats showed they were interested in.

So why do something that would actually...from your vantage point...do little to no good long term, and the damage of doing it both in the short term and long term would've been striking.

When the head of your party comes out pretty much right off, informs people that "they lost", gives them orders if they want to "get things done", and does a 24/7 tour of demonizing the other side the actions somewhat overshadow the hollow words being talked about with regards to "bipartisanship".

This is the first time the Democrats actually offered forth a worthwhile compromise, and the first time in a while that a compromise came down that was actually more beneficial...for the country, their constituents, and themselves in their minds...rather than harmful.

This post is amazing. You could take almost all of what is here, reverse it so that it says the opposite, and then it would make sense.

And we wonder why there is such a deep and wide partisan divide?
 
If things continue the way they are, the poor will be left in a position where there is no option left but to revolt, and expropriate the wealthy that have rode them hard and put them away wet for so many generations.

I say that with the renewal of these tax cuts, the poor have lost a lot, but it has been made clearer than ever that they have also gained the right of revolutionary violence.
 
The Republicans promised to keep taxes down for everyone, including small business owners and the uber rich job creaters. They did that.
They gave in to extending the unemployment for another 13 months! Which they will get grief over from some on the right. Geez, how much more do you people want to take from the workers and give to the non workers?

i have to ask.....are you a worker?
 
I think you are confused about what a compromise is. Don't feel bad, republicans have had that confusion for awhile. Compromise is not staking out the most extreme position and refusing to vote for anything less than it(crying "core values" about everything does not make it true), and then complaining about a lack of bipartisanship(see stimulus, health care), it involves each side actually giving something. This is the first time in 2 years I have seen republicans actually compromise.

Remember Nov. 2 ?? that happened because the Republicans stuck to their guns and DIDN'T vote for the HC or stimulus. We wanted them to be the party of Hell No at that time.
 
If things continue the way they are, the poor will be left in a position where there is no option left but to revolt, and expropriate the wealthy that have rode them hard and put them away wet for so many generations.

I say that with the renewal of these tax cuts, the poor have lost a lot, but it has been made clearer than ever that they have also gained the right of revolutionary violence.

What exactly have the wealthy done TO the poor ? What have they lost? How does someone's money harm them? Is a cashier a cashier because a doctor denied them the incentive to go to college?
 
You are correct. Obama surrendered. And that is very very sad.

I wish he truly had the same mean bitchy vindictive single minded ability to march his party in lockstep the way the GOP has.

Would you have preferred no unemployment, or tax extentions?
Don't you think Obama would've been blamed for raising taxes on those making less than 250,000?
 
If things continue the way they are, the poor will be left in a position where there is no option left but to revolt, and expropriate the wealthy that have rode them hard and put them away wet for so many generations.

I say that with the renewal of these tax cuts, the poor have lost a lot, but it has been made clearer than ever that they have also gained the right of revolutionary violence.

Obama shoulda thought about that, before he killed so many jobs and pissed away so much money of bull**** stimulus projects.

If Obama were really concerned about generating tax revenue and putting people to work, there wouldn't any drilling moratoriums.

I wouldn't be surprised to see an uprising, but it's not going to go the way you want it to.
 
i have to ask.....are you a worker?

Do you own a business? or do you eat from the trough and as long as the trough is filled, regularly, you're good with things?

"Tax'em to death!...as long as you fill my trough every morning".
 
What exactly have the wealthy done TO the poor ? What have they lost? How does someone's money harm them? Is a cashier a cashier because a doctor denied them the incentive to go to college?
Until those forced into the subservience of employment take control of business, the rich will always be the dominators of the poor.
 
Originally Posted by liblady to barbtx
i have to ask.....are you a worker?


and it was repeated with this answer from apdst

Do you own a business? or do you eat from the trough and as long as the trough is filled, regularly, you're good with things?

Could you explain what this has to do with the question first asked by liblady?
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't be surprised to see an uprising, but it's not going to go the way you want it to.

You're 100% right. If the poor got together and rose up I seriously doubt they'd be able to do anything substantial, even if it were the bottom 50% of income earners.

I'm starting to like you :)
 
Remember Nov. 2 ?? that happened because the Republicans stuck to their guns and DIDN'T vote for the HC or stimulus. We wanted them to be the party of Hell No at that time.

Actually no, it happened because the economy was ****ty.
 
Back
Top Bottom