• 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

MrVicchio said:
Yes, because Employers can really afford to do 60 day tax calculations, and should be expected to plan the coming year based on this Banana Republic style Governing the President and Senate think is a good idea.

Folks, the HOUSE all ready passed a 12 MONTH extension. The SENATE Dem's made a political calculation and tried to punt to get what they wanted. As a Conservative, of course I'm going to lean automatically towards the lower taxes, but in this case I'll go with the more common sense approach:

60 days and hope.

1 Year


Which of the above helps the economy? Which of the above would give businesses a clear idea of costs and administrative bull**** they will need to figure out for the next 12 months? Which one is truly a job helper, and not a job harming option.


Pinning this on the GOP is a liberals wet dream, playing heart strings and emotions hoping with the Christmas Season upon us, people will hear the House Rejects a Tax Cut!!! Instead of stopping for that two second heart beat to think about the difference in approaches.


Carry on my liberal friends, denouncing the GOP for trying to push for 12 month tax policy, instead of 60 day political punts.
Click to expand...
Yes, carry on, you bastion of Liberalism, the Wall Street Journal.

Ranting about everthing being some kind of evil Leebrul plot is getting old. :rofl
 
Dickieboy said:
Sure looks like the GOP is overextending...but I guess it is a better place to begin 'negotiations'...?
Click to expand...

It isn't the beginning negotiations phase. They began negotiations months ago. The deal was already struck last week. The house GOP said they'd abide by it until the senate left, then they scuttled it for no reason and replaced it with this ridiculous offer knowing full well that it couldn't pass. The only reason they put it out there was so they could pretend that they wanted the tax break. At this point it's too late to fix unless the house gets back in there and votes the senate plan through this week and the house leadership knows that full well. They already agreed to take this deal. The Democrats gave them everything they asked for. Now they're doublecrossing them and the American people with them.
 
Last edited:
teamosil said:
It isn't the beginning negotiations phase. They began negotiations months ago. The deal was already struck last week. The house GOP said they'd abide by it until the senate left, then they scuttled it for no reason and replaced it with this ridiculous offer knowing full well that it couldn't pass. At this point it's too late to fix unless the house gets back in there and votes the senate plan through this week.
Click to expand...

You're going to have to substantiate this. My research revealed that the House bill was passed first. The Senate bill was passed in response to the House bill. This makes Boehner's request for conference legitimate from an SOP position.
 
Dickieboy said:
You're going to have to substantiate this. My research revealed that the House bill was passed first. The Senate bill was passed in response to the House bill. This makes Boehner's request for conference legitimate from an SOP position.
Click to expand...

Oh are you talking about the bill the passed a while back that was rejected by the senate? That was several rounds of negotiation back. Boehner agreed, publicly, to go along with whatever compromise the senate democrats made with the senate republicans. It appears that he intended to stand by his word, but the tea party caucus threatened revolt after the senate left and he caved in and went back on his commitment.
 
Dickieboy said:
So I recapped the two positons:


House Bill – HR 3630
PROVISIONS
Extends payroll tax cut of 2% for 12 months
Demands BHO up/down decision on Keystone XL in 60 days

[...]

Please correct any of the observations listed above. [...]
Click to expand...
Sure. The sentence on the Keystone XL pipeline is a falsehood (or at least a lie by omission).

HR-3630, as passed by the house, demands that Obama approve the pipeline -or- "submit to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, the majority leader of the Senate, the minority leader of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the minority leader of the House of Representatives a report that provides a justification for determination [that the pipeline is not in the national interest], including consideration of economic, employment, energy security, foreign policy, trade, and environmental factors."

That is not an up/down decision. That is a demand to up, or damn well explain the reason for down (which I assume the Republicans will then argue about). As such it is an insulting directive to the executive branch, that cannot be allowed to stand (for separation of powers purposes if nothing else).

The bill's language also automatically approves the pipeline if Obama does not act within 60 days, again usurping executive power (and possibly providing a loophole for approval even if Obama disapproves it, given the reporting requirement above).

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr3630eh/pdf/BILLS-112hr3630eh.pdf
 
Last edited:
The teaparty picked a loser here....Boehner doesnt run the house republicans....weakest speaker of the house in years
 
teamosil said:
Oh are you talking about the bill the passed a while back that was rejected by the senate? That was several rounds of negotiation back. Boehner agreed, publicly, to go along with whatever compromise the senate democrats made with the senate republicans. It appears that he intended to stand by his word, but the tea party caucus threatened revolt after the senate left and he caved in and went back on his commitment.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think so unless 'a while back' means a week or so ago...I'm talking about HR 3630. It passed the House on 12/13/11. My research revealed that the Senate didn't vote on the House bill but rather ammended it and sent it back to the House on 12/17/11.
 
Dickieboy said:
No, I don't think so unless 'a while back' means a week or so ago...I'm talking about HR 3630. It passed the House on 12/13/11. My research revealed that the Senate didn't vote on the House bill but rather ammended it and sent it back to the House on 12/17/11.
Click to expand...

That's called voting on the House bill.
 
Karl said:
Sure. The sentence on the Keystone XL pipeline is a falsehood (or at least a lie by omission).
Click to expand...

Thanks for your correction but why do you insinuate ‘lie by omission’? Why you gotta hate? I merely posted something for discussion and genuinely requested correction…then you gotta go accusing me of lying.

That is not an up/down decision. That is a demand to up, or damn well explain the reason for down (which I assume the Republicans will then argue about). As such it is an insulting directive to the executive branch, that cannot be allowed to stand (for separation of powers purposes if nothing else).
Click to expand...

‘Demand to up OR down with explanation (sic)’ as you stated sure sounds like he has an option??? I, for one, would like to hear the explanation if he says ‘No’ even if it is ‘because I want to’. INSULTING??? How about ‘you guys gotta ride in the back’?
 
MrVicchio said:
Wut? It's political punting the 60 days yo.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. When Boehner kicked this to the Senate, he said that the House would go along with any compromise that could be reached. The deal forged by Reed and McConnell (Who is not a Liberal, just in case you didn't know) extended the tax cut for 2 months in order to buy time to actually find some common ground. Then Boehner reneges on his promise, saying that a one year deal should have been done. But, in the beginning, Boehner was against any deal at all, including a one year deal. This is about political hostage taking, and in this case, the political execution of a bill that Mitch McConnell (Once again, he isn't a Liberal) himself endorsed. People will remember this, and the Democrats are going to score a whole crapload of points that they don't deserve because of it.
 
Last edited:
Dickieboy said:
Thanks for your correction but why do you insinuate ‘lie by omission’? Why you gotta hate? I merely posted something for discussion and genuinely requested correction…then you gotta go accusing me of lying. [...]
Click to expand...
Who accused you of lying? I assume you copied and pasted the text from Boehner's office, which would make him the liar were you desperate to inject a personal tone into a statement of fact (lying by omission).

Try arguing the facts and leave the ad homs to those who specialize in losing arguments, hmm?
 
danarhea said:
No it isn't. When Boehner kicked this to the Senate, he said that the House would go along with any compromise that could be reached. The deal forged by Reed and McConnell (Who is not a Liberal, just in case you didn't know) extended the tax cut for 2 months in order to buy time to actually find some common ground. Then Boehner reneges on his promise, saying that a one year deal should have been done. But, in the beginning, Boehner was against any deal at all, including a one year deal. This is about political hostage taking, and in this case, the political execution of a bill that Mitch McConnell (Once again, he isn't a Liberal) himself endorsed. People will remember this, and the Democrats are going to score a whole crapload of points that they don't deserve because of it.
Click to expand...

Sure thing there Dan. You get that from MSNBC or from a DNC emailer?
 
Speaker John Boehner this morning flatly denied he had ever supported a Senate-passed temporary extension of the payroll tax holiday and vowed that the House will shoot it down today.The Ohio Republican said the House will kill the Senate-passed bill in a vote this evening. The bill would extend for two months a payroll tax cut and benefits for the long-term jobless and would postpone a scheduled pay cut for doctors who serve Medicare patients.
The House Republican Conference held a rowdy conference call Saturday during which Members said they would not support a two-month extension. Several sources on the call said Boehner indicated that he was inclined to support the bill.
Click to expand...
Boehner Says He Never Backed Senate Payroll Tax Deal : Roll Call News But Dan claims Boehner did agree to it, so obviously we should trust Dan, not the Speaker himself on this.
 
Dickieboy said:
No, I don't think so unless 'a while back' means a week or so ago...I'm talking about HR 3630. It passed the House on 12/13/11. My research revealed that the Senate didn't vote on the House bill but rather ammended it and sent it back to the House on 12/17/11.
Click to expand...

Right. A lot happened since that bill. Everybody knew well before the House passed it that it was a non-starter. It was just for show. Realizing that they were getting close to the cut off and that they didn't have a deal yet, McConnell, Reid and Boehner entered negotiations after that bill went to the senate. Boehner gave his proxy to McConnell, meaning that he would let McConnell negotiate on his behalf. Then Boehner publicly announced that he would abide by whatever they decided. When it came out that it might just be for 2 months, he said that was fine and promised to push it through the house in 24 hours. When the senate Republicans and Democrats agreed on a deal, everybody, including Boehner said it was great and was patting themselves on the back. Supposedly Boehner gave McConnell a high five right after the meeting because he was so psyched that the Democrats had given them everything they asked for. Then, right after the senate left, Boehner was approached by the tea party caucus who apparently threatened an all out revolt if he didn't block it and he suddenly changed position and refused to put it up for a vote. When the Democrats tried to force a vote, he adjourned the house.
 
teamosil said:
The jaded side of me says that they made a really grim calculation. Allowing the payroll tax break to expire means $120 billion less in consumer spending (mostly) this coming year. That means something like 1 million jobs evaporate. It seems to me that they might be thinking "sure, people will be mad at us about this for a few weeks, but they'll forget all about it way before the election, but they won't forget about the unemployment rate and they'll blame Obama for that". I hope they aren't really that cynical about people's lives, but I gotta say, that's how it looks to me at the moment.
Click to expand...

But...but...but...tax cuts won't create jobs! Trickle down doesn't work!

Ya'll seriously need to get your talking points corresponding each other.
 
teamosil said:
Sort of. He promised to veto a bill that REQUIRED him to approve the XL pipeline, but the actual bill just requires him to issue his decision within 60 days, not which way he has to decide it. But, yeah, I think that is part of what happened here. The house Republicans thought they could safely agree to the tax break for the middle class as long as it had something on there about the pipeline because Obama would veto it and they wouldn't have to actually give the middle class a tax break. When it turned out that it would actually go into effect they had to backpedal or else it would actually happen.
Click to expand...

What with job creation being on the top of his priority list, he would just go ahead and approve the pipeline.
 
apdst said:
What with job creation being on the top of his priority list, he would just go ahead and approve the pipeline.
Click to expand...
And Republicans should give up on outlawing abortion, since that would cost jobs.
 
teamosil said:
Boehner gave his proxy to McConnell, meaning that he would let McConnell negotiate on his behalf. Then Boehner publicly announced that he would abide by whatever they decided. When it came out that it might just be for 2 months, he said that was fine and promised to push it through the house in 24 hours. When the senate Republicans and Democrats agreed on a deal, everybody, including Boehner said it was great and was patting themselves on the back. Supposedly Boehner gave McConnell a high five right after the meeting because he was so psyched that the Democrats had given them everything they asked for.
Click to expand...

Can you source this? #41 seems to contradict these assertions.
 
apdst said:
But...but...but...tax cuts won't create jobs! Trickle down doesn't work!

Ya'll seriously need to get your talking points corresponding each other.
Click to expand...
He wasn't talking about trickle down. Somebody seriously needs to read... of course, that takes more effort than talking.
 
apdst said:
But...but...but...tax cuts won't create jobs! Trickle down doesn't work!

Ya'll seriously need to get your talking points corresponding each other.
Click to expand...

You're mixing a lot of things up. First off, trickle down is about the RICH getting tax cuts, not the middle class. This isn't trickle down. The idea with trickle down is that you give the rich more money, they invest more of it, that spurs the economy. That is definitely true. Nobody disagrees with that all things being equal. The problem with the theory is that investment alone can't fuel the economy. You also need consumer spending, and consumer spending comes from the middle class having money. So, by trying to force too much of the money into the pockets of the rich, the right screwed up the economy. The tradeoff costs of ramming all that money into the pockets of the rich got out of control. Massive deficits, cutting safety net spending, etc. We had a ton of investment, but very little consumer spending because they were screwing the middle class. This is fixing that.

apdst said:
What with job creation being on the top of his priority list, he would just go ahead and approve the pipeline.
Click to expand...

The pipeline. LOL. 20,000 jobs... This is 1 MILLION jobs at least. 20,000 jobs is basically nothing at the national level.
 
Karl said:
And Republicans should give up on outlawing abortion, since that would cost jobs.
Click to expand...

Why go off thread?

I posted what I understood what both bills included. I am interested in:

1. Compiling a comprehensive ACCURATE listing of the two.

2. Seeing if a consensus on DP can be achieved on the illusive compromise suggested endlessly.

This may be a useless hope but all else seems to be the typical useless partisan crap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom