Payroll Tax Cut Extension - What's a Hand Shake Worth in Washington?

[soonercruiser]

So, Boehwolf and Harry the Body Reid did a hand shake on a deal over the extension of the payroll tax cuts on Monday.
(coupling the push on the Keystone XL Pipeline)
At a press conference Boehner said they shook hands and agreed!

So, Reid calls the President, and Obama says "Whooaaaa there"!
Lets tack on something else in the Senate that will cause the Repubicans to turn down the deal.
After all, I need some more "Repubican blame" for the coming election. I don't really want a bill that I can sign.

Who will get the blame for shutting down the government?

Will Reid even allow a vote on the House Bill????
Seems to me that the ball is always in the Senate's court, and simply stays in Reid's pocket!

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Keystone makes the Donks look bad

[badger]

While initially declared "dead on arrival" I think the Dems realize that voting down a middle class tax cut and social security blah blah blah would be a death blow for the upcoming elections.

I have heard more talk of the millionaire tax getting pulled. Looks like the Republicans win :)

[diverdog]

Keystone makes the Donks look bad

My memory is vaque on this so please help me. Is Key Stone the old Trans Canada pipeline? And if it is am I correct that there was a much cheaper alternative that cost the taxpayer a lot less money?

[ictsooner7]

So, Boehwolf and Harry the Body Reid did a hand shake on a deal over the extension of the payroll tax cuts on Monday.
(coupling the push on the Keystone XL Pipeline)
At a press conference Boehner said they shook hands and agreed!

So, Reid calls the President, and Obama says "Whooaaaa there"!
Lets tack on something else in the Senate that will cause the Repubicans to turn down the deal.
After all, I need some more "Repubican blame" for the coming election. I don't really want a bill that I can sign.

Who will get the blame for shutting down the government?

Will Reid even allow a vote on the House Bill????
Seems to me that the ball is always in the Senate's court, and simply stays in Reid's pocket!

WOW no wonder our country is so screwed up, it was the republicans who turned down a TAX CUT only because it wasnt for the rich! totally paid for then they scrambled to put up some show dog to cover their asses with the middle class. It is the republicants fault, treason is what it is called, follow your real leader rush, who has never received a single vote for office talk about unamerican

[soonercruiser]

WOW no wonder our country is so screwed up, it was the republicans who turned down a TAX CUT only because it wasnt for the rich! totally paid for then they scrambled to put up some show dog to cover their asses with the middle class. It is the republicants fault, treason is what it is called, follow your real leader rush, who has never received a single vote for office talk about unamerican

So, your view point on the balance of powers is that the Repugs should give Reid and Obama only everything that the Left Wing wants??
No give & take?
Only the Left should talk - everyone else should just shut up!
Nice!

[TheHumanAlphabet]

New pipeline from Alberta to Cushing, OK to connect Alberta OIl Sands oil/bitumen to the refineries in Houston. GReeners were upset it went over an water aquifer (tho how a surface or near surface piepline can damage a deep underground water aquifer is beyond me at this point. O'Bummer killed it by having the State Dept. have them go back and look at re-routing thru Nebbish, as this is an international pipeline. It pushes back design and construction past the next election.

[soonercruiser]

My memory is vaque on this so please help me. Is Key Stone the old Trans Canada pipeline? And if it is am I correct that there was a much cheaper alternative that cost the taxpayer a lot less money?

No, not the same Diver.
See wiki...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransCanada_pipeline

Actually the "Keystone Pipeline" already exists.
The "Keystone XL" Pipeline is merely a doubling of the pipeline's capacity; and connection of some minor feeder lines.
There was a map of those in the Daily Oklahoman a couple of weeks ago.

[badger]

The Democrats are gonna get voted out en masse and they have nobody to blame but themselves when it happens.

Their opponent is a headless beast (it amazes me how the Republicans couldn't get a stronger candidate to run for president against an extremely unpopular incumbent) that in this economy, should be faring much more badly in the eyes of voters. When rich people are getting richer and their tax obligations seem unfairly low as the middle class disappears in a pile of growing lower class unemployed rubble, you'd think they could blame Republican policies. When businesses horde cash instead of hiring, government work is drying up from lack of funds and infrastructure is crumbling, you'd think Democrats could work with that to their favor.

Instead, derp de derp derp let's waste Obama's first two years in office with unpopular legislation as unemployment grows and watch ourselves lose control of the House to Republicans in the midterm elections. And now, let's spend two deadlocked years of battling House versus Senate while the president's unpopularity grows with unemployment.

And when people ask why we didn't do anything to help them, let's blame Republicans in the State of the Union and other presidential addresses, because that's exactly what voters that depend on us to make the best decisions in everyone's interest wants to hear.

I am surrounded by Democrats. And they are disgusted with what the last four years have become.

[ictsooner7]

The Democrats are gonna get voted out en masse and they have nobody to blame but themselves when it happens.

Their opponent is a headless beast (it amazes me how the Republicans couldn't get a stronger candidate to run for president against an extremely unpopular incumbent) that in this economy, should be faring much more badly in the eyes of voters. When rich people are getting richer and their tax obligations seem unfairly low as the middle class disappears in a pile of growing lower class unemployed rubble, you'd think they could blame Republican policies. When businesses horde cash instead of hiring, government work is drying up from lack of funds and infrastructure is crumbling, you'd think Democrats could work with that to their favor.

Instead, derp de derp derp let's waste Obama's first two years in office with unpopular legislation as unemployment grows and watch ourselves lose control of the House to Republicans in the midterm elections. And now, let's spend two deadlocked years of battling House versus Senate while the president's unpopularity grows with unemployment.

And when people ask why we didn't do anything to help them, let's blame Republicans in the State of the Union and other presidential addresses, because that's exactly what voters that depend on us to make the best decisions in everyone's interest wants to hear.

I am surrounded by Democrats. And they are disgusted with what the last four years have become.

We are? Really? Like in Wisconsin? Getting ready to lose a Governor there. IF your party is so strong why is that they have been doing everything they can to restrict voters? Shortening early voting, eliminating same day registration, voter ID, gerrymandering districts to more republicant districts. The people of this country are seeing what the republicans are all about, tax cuts for the very rich while raising taxes on poor and middle class and they do not like what they are seeing. Kansas is getting ready to cut taxes on the very wealthy while raising everyone else to play for it. Tell me two things:



1: After 10 years of non-paid for tax cuts for the rich, where the hell are the jobs?


2: Why is it that tax cuts for the middle class have to be paid for but tax cuts for the rich don't have to be?


I am surrounded by republicans and it sickens me.

[soonercoop1]

We are? Really? Like in Wisconsin? Getting ready to lose a Governor there. IF your party is so strong why is that they have been doing everything they can to restrict voters? Shortening early voting, eliminating same day registration, voter ID, gerrymandering districts to more republicant districts. The people of this country are seeing what the republicans are all about, tax cuts for the very rich while raising taxes on poor and middle class and they do not like what they are seeing. Kansas is getting ready to cut taxes on the very wealthy while raising everyone else to play for it. Tell me two things:



1: After 10 years of non-paid for tax cuts for the rich, where the hell are the jobs?


2: Why is it that tax cuts for the middle class have to be paid for but tax cuts for the rich don't have to be?


I am surrounded by republicans and it sickens me.

When was the last time Dems compromised on any of their "rails"? How long has it been since the Senate passed a budget? When was the last time a Dem could tell the truth and get elected? Both parties are complicit as is the media for all of our problems but the root of all of them stem from Repubs always compromising with Dems and the liberal progressive ideology. It has destroyed America. Time for that ideology to end.

[ictsooner7]

When was the last time Dems compromised on any of their "rails"? How long has it been since the Senate passed a budget? When was the last time a Dem could tell the truth and get elected? Both parties are complicit as is the media for all of our problems but the root of all of them stem from Repubs always compromising with Dems and the liberal progressive ideology. It has destroyed America. Time for that ideology to end.

First i noticed you didn't answer the questions, as usual and expected. When have the repubs compromised to the dems? That is laughable. What rails, Social Security and Medicaid? The two most popular and successful programs we have. Look back in history and see when our worst economic times are. Hoover and Republican controlled congress got us into the first republican depression, the second came a year and a half into Reagan's first term and finally after six long years of republican control we had the second worst economic crisis in our history. Now before you go blame the dems tell me exactly what laws or regulations bush signed into law that the dems passed.

[badger]

We are? Really? Like in Wisconsin? Getting ready to lose a Governor there.

Yeah... I don't think he's gonna get recalled. They might get it on a ballot, but I don't think it'll be successful. They still need quite a few more sigs (33k if their tallies are accurate) and even then, some of those sigs might be considered invalid. Sounds like a waste of time just to make a point or get publicity.


IF your party is so strong why is that they have been doing everything they can to restrict voters? Shortening early voting, eliminating same day registration, voter ID, gerrymandering districts to more republicant districts.

From personal experience, there usually aren't a lot of early voters compared to people that vote on election day at their polling places. Same-day registration has the potential for voter fraud, so I can see why they'd eliminate that. Voter ID isn't that big of a deal, because most people of voting age have some form of ID anyway (like the driver's license they used to drive to the poll). The district reallignment thing is almost a tradition among whichever party is in power. Democrats once did it in Oklahoma and now Republicans are doing it in states like Texas. That doesn't make it right, but it does mean that you really can't point at one party without pointing at the other.


The people of this country are seeing what the republicans are all about, tax cuts for the very rich while raising taxes on poor and middle class and they do not like what they are seeing. Kansas is getting ready to cut taxes on the very wealthy while raising everyone else to play for it.

Even if they are seeing it, I am not sure they will act on it by voting for Democrats. That was my point of the first post --- that Democrats aren't doing enough to draw attention to their cause and are doing more alienate and anger voters.


Tell me two things:



1: After 10 years of non-paid for tax cuts for the rich, where the hell are the jobs?

If we knew that answer, we might have jobs by now. If I had the answer, I wouldn't have hidden it and would have told as many people as possible so that our employment rates could rise a little bit.



2: Why is it that tax cuts for the middle class have to be paid for but tax cuts for the rich don't have to be?

I would argue that everything has a cost, whether we see it right away or not. So I would argue that we are paying for every tax cut, even if it's not brought up in every debate.



I am surrounded by republicans and it sickens me.

I am disgusted with both parties, not just Democrats. It just amazes me how angry Democrats appear to me about their own party... how they are just feeling taken advantage of, like they voted for something that never materialized and the situation is as bad as it was when Obama took office for some.

[soonercruiser]

I am surrounded by republicans and it sickens me.

Then move to, and/or post in Kal-E-Fo-Knee-A!
:excitement:

Just in case you haven't read a lot of the other posts and threads on the forum, I will say that even some registered Republicans who are conservative do not like what many Republican politicians do and say.

Otherwise, you just may be getting sick on conservative issues and facts.
(Those are not necessarily "Repubican")

[badger]

I will say that even some registered Republicans who are conservative do not like what many Republican politicians do and say.

That's the thing, isn't it? Do and say. Problem is that they often don't match up when it's concerning a politician. :(

[ictsooner7]

Then move to, and/or post in Kal-E-Fo-Knee-A!
:excitement:

Just in case you haven't read a lot of the other posts and threads on the forum, I will say that even some registered Republicans who are conservative do not like what many Republican politicians do and say.

Otherwise, you just may be getting sick on conservative issues and facts.
(Those are not necessarily "Repubican")

I get sick of republicans who cannot be consistent with their arguments, like tax cuts don't have to be paid for when the are talking the wealthy but the second tax cuts for the middle class comes suddenly they do. It sickens me how quickly and easily they change from the their "long held convictions" at a drop of the hat when rush changes his ignorant mind, or some right wing nutjob disagrees and must importantly when the koch brothers tells them to change it.

[ictsooner7]

Yeah... I don't think he's gonna get recalled. They might get it on a ballot, but I don't think it'll be successful. They still need quite a few more sigs (33k if their tallies are accurate) and even then, some of those sigs might be considered invalid. Sounds like a waste of time just to make a point or get publicity.



From personal experience, there usually aren't a lot of early voters compared to people that vote on election day at their polling places. Same-day registration has the potential for voter fraud, so I can see why they'd eliminate that. Voter ID isn't that big of a deal, because most people of voting age have some form of ID anyway (like the driver's license they used to drive to the poll). The district reallignment thing is almost a tradition among whichever party is in power. Democrats once did it in Oklahoma and now Republicans are doing it in states like Texas. That doesn't make it right, but it does mean that you really can't point at one party without pointing at the other.[/QUOTE]

Voter ID is a huge deal, ALL Americans should be allowed to vote, older people don't have ID's, they don't drive. As for voter fraud it is practically non-existent. Out of the ten of millions of votes cast in 2006 only 120 cases were tried with 86 cases were convicted, most were errors in filling out registration forms. There is no such thing as massive voter fraud, but 5 MILLION American citizens may not be able to vote this coming election, so it is a HUGE deal.


[/QUOTE]Even if they are seeing it, I am not sure they will act on it by voting for Democrats. That was my point of the first post --- that Democrats aren't doing enough to draw attention to their cause and are doing more alienate and anger voters.[/QUOTE]

After only two weeks into getting signatures 500,000 has been to be collected, with 733,000 needing to be collected. Several lawsuits have been filed and arrests have been made of walker supporters who grabbed petitions and tore them up and violence towards signature gathers. Your boy is in real trouble and he knows it. Two more republican senators are being recalled as well.


[/QUOTE]If we knew that answer, we might have jobs by now. If I had the answer, I wouldn't have hidden it and would have told as many people as possible so that our employment rates could rise a little bit. [/QUOTE]

If you donn't know the answer then stop arguing for things claiming they will create jobs.

[/QUOTE]I would argue that everything has a cost, whether we see it right away or not. So I would argue that we are paying for every tax cut, even if it's not brought up in every debate.[/QUOTE]

This is a classic example of how quickly you people change the facts, your party ran around for months screaming tax cuts don't have to be paid when debating the bush tax cuts for now when we bring up that you said it, you deny saying it, stop lying.


[/QUOTE]I am disgusted with both parties, not just Democrats. It just amazes me how angry Democrats appear to me about their own party... how they are just feeling taken advantage of, like they voted for something that never materialized and the situation is as bad as it was when Obama took office for some.[/QUOTE]

[badger]

I like cordial arguments with Democrats like Hawaii 5-0 instead. They don't resort to "your party" and "your boy" generalizations. You make it sound like I'm a hardcore Republican. I'm not. Chill

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I like cordial arguments with Democrats like Hawaii 5-0 instead. They don't resort to "your party" and "your boy" generalizations. You make it sound like I'm a hardcore Republican. I'm not. Chill

Methinks ict is a troll.

[badger]

Oh yes, but even trolls can have meaningful arguments with you know... a give and take of information and stuff like a conversation normally has.

protip: put [ quote ] before what you are trying to quote, and [ /quote ] after what you are trying to quote.


like this!

[Curly Bill]

Methinks ict is a troll.

Agreed. Almost sure of it in fact. Just don't know who it belongs to.

[diverdog]

Oh yes, but even trolls can have meaningful arguments with you know... a give and take of information and stuff like a conversation normally has.

protip: put [ quote ] before what you are trying to quote, and [ /quote ] after what you are trying to quote.

Are you a.....gulp......girl?

[pphilfran]

Are you a.....gulp......girl?

gulp...yes...

[diverdog]

gulp...yes...

Crap. That means I cannot say crap anymore.

[ictsooner7]

I like cordial arguments with Democrats like Hawaii 5-0 instead. They don't resort to "your party" and "your boy" generalizations. You make it sound like I'm a hardcore Republican. I'm not. Chill

If you are not a hardcore republican, you sure sound and act like one!

How funny it is when you prove my point to you the subject is changed to how I argue, I am not a typical rollover and take dem, I will stand and fight all day long for what i know is right and against what I know is wrong.

I caught you red-handed making up your own facts to support your agreement and like a true republican you try to change the topic. All of you republicans say your independent but hate democrats and anything that you consider to be progressive or god forbid liberal. I don’t run off and hide behind I'm not a hardcore republican when you talk and have views just like one. This is what I meant by you people, as you your party, i don't even have to ask if your are a registered republican, but i wont be shocked for you to claim your a independent, that’s what you people do, change the facts to fit your argument when its convenient.

I am a hardcore redmeat LIBERAL and damn proud of my views. I am not some lip wristed, weak spine POS like harry reid, I will not take the right lying then ducking for cover and trying to change the history of what they did or said then they get busted. I have no shame in admitting I have cast two non democratic votes in the 32 years I’ve been voting; I regret both of those votes. I vote democrat because they stand for my beliefs and economic interests and before you claim I am a system sucker I am college educated white collar professional and up until May I had three kids in college.

Telling me to chill is so incredibly condescending.

[badger]

If you are not a hardcore republican, you sure sound and act like one!

How funny it is when you prove my point to you the subject is changed to how I argue, I am not a typical rollover and take dem, I will stand and fight all day long for what i know is right and against what I know is wrong.

Good for you.


I caught you red-handed making up your own facts to support your agreement and like a true republican you try to change the topic. All of you republicans say your independent but hate democrats and anything that you consider to be progressive or god forbid liberal. I don’t run off and hide behind I'm not a hardcore republican when you talk and have views just like one. This is what I meant by you people, as you your party, i don't even have to ask if your are a registered republican, but i wont be shocked for you to claim your a independent, that’s what you people do, change the facts to fit your argument when its convenient.

I said from personal experience, which I guess can be taken as much as an opinion as a fact... thus I'm not sure I really "made up" any facts. I was speaking from personal experience.

You can ask if I'm a registered Republican, I don't mind sharing it: I am a registered Republican for one reason: Oklahoma does not have open primaries and a majority of candidates for contested primaries are Republicans. Thus, in order to participate in the process (and I do every opportunity I can --- the polling place is less than a mile away), I do not register as an independent. The second the state changes its open primary laws, I'll change my registration to "indy"


I am a hardcore redmeat LIBERAL and damn proud of my views. I am not some lip wristed, weak spine POS like harry reid, I will not take the right lying then ducking for cover and trying to change the history of what they did or said then they get busted. I have no shame in admitting I have cast two non democratic votes in the 32 years I’ve been voting; I regret both of those votes. I vote democrat because they stand for my beliefs and economic interests and before you claim I am a system sucker I am college educated white collar professional and up until May I had three kids in college.

Once again, good for you.

I also have voted for Democratic candidates... Rush let me know how bad I was each time I admitted it here. If you stick around awhile and lighten up a tad, you might have some fun with some of the hardcore posters.


Telling me to chill is so incredibly condescending.

There are so many more incredibly condescending things in your post that I just kind of rolled my eyes at that. "Chill," as in, "we're having fun on a message board here, not trying to stir up any hard feelings or make anyone angry, please calm down!"

[ictsooner7]

Good for you.



I said from personal experience, which I guess can be taken as much as an opinion as a fact... thus I'm not sure I really "made up" any facts. I was speaking from personal experience.

You can ask if I'm a registered Republican, I don't mind sharing it: I am a registered Republican for one reason: Oklahoma does not have open primaries and a majority of candidates for contested primaries are Republicans. Thus, in order to participate in the process (and I do every opportunity I can --- the polling place is less than a mile away), I do not register as an independent. The second the state changes its open primary laws, I'll change my registration to "indy"



Once again, good for you.

I also have voted for Democratic candidates... Rush let me know how bad I was each time I admitted it here. If you stick around awhile and lighten up a tad, you might have some fun with some of the hardcore posters.



There are so many more incredibly condescending things in your post that I just kind of rolled my eyes at that. "Chill," as in, "we're having fun on a message board here, not trying to stir up any hard feelings or make anyone angry, please calm down!"

You did make up facts, you stated as a fact the heathcare costs in Texas went up 900% in 3 years. That is not from personal experience. Simply admit you lied and i caught you.

[soonercruiser]

Crap. That means I cannot say crap anymore.

But....but....you typed "crap"!
:smiley_simmons:

[hawaii 5-0]

I like cordial arguments with Democrats like Hawaii 5-0 instead. They don't resort to "your party" and "your boy" generalizations. You make it sound like I'm a hardcore Republican. I'm not. Chill



Thanks for the prop Badger. Frankly, I'm sick of all politicians. I'd love to throw them ALL out and start fresh, with stipulations. They get paid for the amount of work they do. No work, no pay.

I'd love to see this Country move forward thru equal compromise. I'm sick of the Do Nothing train of thought.

5-0

[soonercruiser]

If you are not a hardcore republican, you sure sound and act like one!

How funny it is when you prove my point to you the subject is changed to how I argue, I am not a typical rollover and take dem, I will stand and fight all day long for what i know is right and against what I know is wrong.

I caught you red-handed making up your own facts to support your agreement and like a true republican you try to change the topic. All of you republicans say your independent but hate democrats and anything that you consider to be progressive or god forbid liberal. I don’t run off and hide behind I'm not a hardcore republican when you talk and have views just like one. This is what I meant by you people, as you your party, i don't even have to ask if your are a registered republican, but i wont be shocked for you to claim your a independent, that’s what you people do, change the facts to fit your argument when its convenient.

I am a hardcore redmeat LIBERAL and damn proud of my views. I am not some lip wristed, weak spine POS like harry reid, I will not take the right lying then ducking for cover and trying to change the history of what they did or said then they get busted. I have no shame in admitting I have cast two non democratic votes in the 32 years I’ve been voting; I regret both of those votes. I vote democrat because they stand for my beliefs and economic interests and before you claim I am a system sucker I am college educated white collar professional and up until May I had three kids in college.

Telling me to chill is so incredibly condescending.

Chill out Dude!
Even a more hard core liberal than Harry the Body Reid might be tolerated if he wasn't such a ***k!

[soonercruiser]

You did make up facts, you stated as a fact the heathcare costs in Texas went up 900% in 3 years. That is not from personal experience. Simply admit you lied and i caught you.

ict,
Who are you talking to about the 900% increase in malpractice insurance costs???
Have you lost your mind?
Is this a misplaced post from another thread????
Have you been dringing some hard core alcohol????
You have "lost ict"!

[badger]

You did make up facts, you stated as a fact the heathcare costs in Texas went up 900% in 3 years. That is not from personal experience. Simply admit you lied and i caught you.

Ummmm... no I didn't. I don't give a crap about Texas. I live in Oklahoma. They can do whatever the eff they want with their healthiness. I've hardly contributed to that thread, but I know I didn't say that!

:) So does that mean we can be friendly now?

PS: Go ahead and look at that thread! I think I posted like three times in it (due to me losing an avatar bet, my posts should stick out like a sore thumb with the orange Poke logo). I think my contribution to that discussion was mentioning how high sales taxes were when NP and I visited London, how new fast-paced medical care centers might open if Obamacare causes things to get backlogged in the main care centers, and that we're all probably being more careful with our own health by seeing the mess you can get into with a medical problem.

[diverdog]

Ummmm... no I didn't. I don't give a crap about Texas. I live in Oklahoma. They can do whatever the eff they want with their healthiness. I've hardly contributed to that thread, but I know I didn't say that!

:) So does that mean we can be friendly now?

PS: Go ahead and look at that thread! I think I posted like three times in it (due to me losing an avatar bet, my posts should stick out like a sore thumb with the orange Poke logo). I think my contribution to that discussion was mentioning how high sales taxes were when NP and I visited London, how new fast-paced medical care centers might open if Obamacare causes things to get backlogged in the main care centers, and that we're all probably being more careful with our own health by seeing the mess you can get into with a medical problem.

She said "crap"! hehehehe

[ictsooner7]

ict,
Who are you talking to about the 900% increase in malpractice insurance costs???
Have you lost your mind?
Is this a misplaced post from another thread????
Have you been dringing some hard core alcohol????
You have "lost ict"!

NO,
Yes my error............................................. personal responiblity.
No just a screwup.
You never lose when you tell the truth.

[badger]

NO,
Yes my error............................................. personal responiblity.
No just a screwup.
You never lose when you tell the truth.

OK, now do you promise to be nice and stuff, even as a staunch, hardcore Democrat? :D

[ictsooner7]

OK, now do you promise to be nice and stuff, even as a staunch, hardcore Democrat? :D

I will be as nice are you are....the difference is people on the right have no problem with insulting the left and when we stand up for ourselves and insult you back, the right screams bloody murder.

[badger]

I will be as nice are you are....the difference is people on the right have no problem with insulting the left and when we stand up for ourselves and insult you back, the right screams bloody murder.

<sigh> You know, your standing up and insulting "back" was based on a post that you thought that I made that I didn't and I didn't scream bloody murder afterward.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

So I can't figure out who won the Keystone pipeline deal. It's in the bill, but it sounds as if the state dept bureaucracy will have a roadblock on it anyway.

[cleller]

The latest thing I read on the pipeling is the democrats in the Congress are set to concede on the pipeline, because they believe "the administration" can find a way around it. In other words, they think Obama and his rubber spine can yet again find a way to put off the decision until after the election. Make a decision, man. Do your job.

source: Wall Street Journal, 12-17.

[soonercoop1]

First i noticed you didn't answer the questions, as usual and expected. When have the repubs compromised to the dems? That is laughable. What rails, Social Security and Medicaid? The two most popular and successful programs we have. Look back in history and see when our worst economic times are. Hoover and Republican controlled congress got us into the first republican depression, the second came a year and a half into Reagan's first term and finally after six long years of republican control we had the second worst economic crisis in our history. Now before you go blame the dems tell me exactly what laws or regulations bush signed into law that the dems passed.

Would guess only a liberal progressive would call $15 trillion in debt "popular and successful"...if I have to point out the "many" times throughout the years that Pubs have compromised with Dems you are too far gone to argue with...to put it simply liberal progressive ideology and the "lack" of enforcement allowed the last economic crisis to occur...those responsible should be imprisoned or worse...we as Americans should shoulder much of the blame as we continue to elect these criminals (although some states more than others)...when was the last time a Dem could tell the truth and be elected...

[soonercoop1]

So I can't figure out who won the Keystone pipeline deal. It's in the bill, but it sounds as if the state dept bureaucracy will have a roadblock on it anyway.

Looks like Obama beat Boehner once again...neither has much of a spine...

[badger]

The latest thing I read on the pipeling is the democrats in the Congress are set to concede on the pipeline, because they believe "the administration" can find a way around it. In other words, they think Obama and his rubber spine can yet again find a way to put off the decision until after the election. Make a decision, man. Do your job.

source: Wall Street Journal, 12-17.

The last I heard on it was that the payroll tax extension included a mandate that Obama had to approve the pipeline... unless he finds a reason not to. Thus, it really is up to President Obama at this point whether or not he wants it to go forward.

Alas, this is about the time that Obama needs to feign a heart attack, suddenly have a more pressing matter to deal with or, just having anything distract him from needing to make a decision, because two special interest groups core to the voter base in the Democratic party - unions and environmentalists - are on opposite sides on this issue. Environmentalists of course are against anything that can hurt he environment like a pipeline, but unions want the jobs that would go along with such a project. So, like I said, Obama really could use a lifeline at this point so that he doesn't have to upset either side.

Difficult times call for difficult decisions... perhaps it's time to say "eff the special interests" and just do what he thinks is right, because it's not like environmentalists or unions are going to vote for Obama's opponent in the 2012 election, anyway.

[ictsooner7]

Would guess only a liberal progressive would call $15 trillion in debt "popular and successful"...if I have to point out the "many" times throughout the years that Pubs have compromised with Dems you are too far gone to argue with...to put it simply liberal progressive ideology and the "lack" of enforcement allowed the last economic crisis to occur...those responsible should be imprisoned or worse...we as Americans should shoulder much of the blame as we continue to elect these criminals (although some states more than others)...when was the last time a Dem could tell the truth and be elected...

First it should should have read Medicare not Medicaid - how incredibly uninformed you are, if social security and medicare were eliminated today the deficit would not change at all. Social Security and Medicare are self funded from separate taxes than the general fund. Of course the right always groups them pretending they are all the same. As for $15 trillion in deficits thank your own right wing conservative presidents starting with RONALD REAGAN who TRIPLED the deficit from $900 billion to $3 Trillion. Next in line is the first bush who added another $2 trillion in four short years and then the grand champion of all deficit raisers - the most conservative president in our history..............we all know the story he started with a $238 Billion surplus left to him from a...wait for it..wait for it A DEMOCRAT!! and quickly turned it into a $500 billion dollar a year deficit adding a whopping $5 trillion to the deficit and throwing our country into a second republican depression.



As for the rest of it...i completely agree the people who cheated, lied and stole money that got bailed out then complained people where mad at them for it, should be in jail forever. We should run anyone out of office who has or will take a dime from wall street.

[Sooner5030]

First it should should have read Medicare not Medicaid - how incredibly uninformed you are, if social security and medicare were eliminated today the deficit would not change at all. Social Security and Medicare are self funded from separate taxes than the general fund. Of course the right always groups them pretending they are all the same. As for $15 trillion in deficits thank your own right wing conservative presidents starting with RONALD REAGAN who TRIPLED the deficit from $900 billion to $3 Trillion. Next in line is the first bush who added another $2 trillion in four short years and then the grand champion of all deficit raisers - the most conservative president in our history..............we all know the story he started with a $238 Billion surplus left to him from a...wait for it..wait for it A DEMOCRAT!! and quickly turned it into a $500 billion dollar a year deficit adding a whopping $5 trillion to the deficit and throwing our country into a second republican depression.



As for the rest of it...i completely agree the people who cheated, lied and stole money that got bailed out then complained people where mad at them for it, should be in jail forever. We should run anyone out of office who has or will take a dime from wall street.

I'm not sure which part or all of civics class you missed. Not one f'ing dollar can be spent without two branches (executive + legislature) approving of any level of expenditures. The president will request in his budget.....the congress will vote on multiple resolutions but the final amounts are authored by the appropriations committees and then passed by both houses and then signed by the president.

There are others (both parties) that are culpable for our situation. Not sure where you got the information in your post......but if you paid for it you should ask for a refund.

[ictsooner7]

I'm not sure which part or all of civics class you missed. Not one f'ing dollar can be spent without two branches (executive + legislature) approving of any level of expenditures. The president will request in his budget.....the congress will vote on multiple resolutions but the final amounts are authored by the appropriations committees and then passed by both houses and then signed by the president.

There are others (both parties) that are culpable for our situation. Not sure where you got the information in your post......but if you paid for it you should ask for a refund.

OK do you not understand that social security and medicare are not in the general budget? Both parties are not, under the CLINTON plan would have paid off in 2007, but no, your party under dubya rammed through tax cuts for the rich that spiked the deficit. Please read up on Social Security and Medicare. Taking a close at your paycheck is a good starting point.

As for having to have both houses of congress to spend "not one f'ing dollar" is a word I am sure you have heard; entitlements. You see Medicare and Social Security are entitlements. Google it, learn it, then argue with me.

[Sooner5030]

OK do you not understand that social security and medicare are not in the general budget? Both parties are not, under the CLINTON plan would have paid off in 2007, but no, your party under dubya rammed through tax cuts for the rich that spiked the deficit. Please read up on Social Security and Medicare. Taking a close at your paycheck is a good starting point.

As for having to have both houses of congress to spend "not one f'ing dollar" is a word I am sure you have heard; entitlements. You see Medicare and Social Security are entitlements. Google it, learn it, then argue with me.

I know the difference between mandatory (entitlements+ debt interest) and discretionary. You don't understand that the discretionary requires appropriations that are passed by both houses and then signed by the president.

and the mandatory items are included in the budget. By law those estimates have to be included in the presidents budget sent to congress in February. They are also included in the resolutions as estimate....they are not appropriated though.

[ictsooner7]

I know the difference between mandatory (entitlements+ debt interest) and discretionary. You don't understand that the discretionary requires appropriations that are passed by both houses and then signed by the president.

and the mandatory items are included in the budget. By law those estimates have to be included in the presidents budget sent to congress in February. They are also included in the resolutions as estimate....they are not appropriated though.

That's not what you said. What you said was the social security and medicare caused the $15 trillion defict which is a myth perpetuated by the right to try to kill social security and medicare.

[Sooner5030]

That's not what you said. What you said was the social security and medicare caused the $15 trillion defict which is a myth perpetuated by the right to try to kill social security and medicare.

you are confused. I never said anything about SS or medicare causing the $15 trillion debt. Deficit is just the annual gap by the way.

[ictsooner7]

you are confused. I never said anything about SS or medicare causing the $15 trillion debt. Deficit is just the annual gap by the way.


I am not confused here is what you said "Would guess only a liberal progressive would call $15 trillion in debt "popular and successful".." I was talking about SS and medicare being popular and successful, you said how is $15t in debt popular and successful, you linked SS and Medicare to the debt. How am I confused? Trying to change history again.

[ictsooner7]

Repubs agreed to a deal then backed out yet again wanting more. Unable to governer.

[dwarthog]

OK do you not understand that social security and medicare are not in the general budget? Both parties are not, under the CLINTON plan would have paid off in 2007, but no, your party under dubya rammed through tax cuts for the rich that spiked the deficit. Please read up on Social Security and Medicare. Taking a close at your paycheck is a good starting point.

As for having to have both houses of congress to spend "not one f'ing dollar" is a word I am sure you have heard; entitlements. You see Medicare and Social Security are entitlements. Google it, learn it, then argue with me.

You do realize, even though separate, they have both been raided to the point of insolvency for use in the "general fund", unless you count those IOU's squirrelled away as somehow being redeemable in some place other than fantasy land.

And this most excellent idea of further reducing the amount available to cover Social Security expenditures with this boneheaded "tax break", pretty much sticks a fork in it for future generations.

[ictsooner7]

You do realize, even though separate, they have both been raided to the point of insolvency for use in the "general fund", unless you count those IOU's squirrelled away as somehow being redeemable in some place other than fantasy land.

And this most excellent idea of further reducing the amount available to cover Social Security expenditures with this boneheaded "tax break", pretty much sticks a fork in it for future generations.

Of course I do and under the Clinton plan it ALL would have been paid off by 2007. Do you not realize that in the $15 trillion of debt are those IOU's? A MAJORITY of our debt is held by social security and medicare not China. For being redeemable is a fantasy? That money was borrowed and has to be repaid, of course the teabaggers don't seem to think that debts that have been incurred should be paid, ie: tea party event in Vegas that the hotel had to sue the group for non-payment, Joe Walsh teabagger US CONGRESSMEN from Illinois and well known deadbeat to his own kids. How many teabagger leaders have declared bankruptcy? Even the teabaggers favorite singer did!

[badger]

That money was borrowed and has to be repaid

I wonder sometimes how the U.S. will get out of its debt, both foreign and here... and I have a suspicion that it might involve some things that screw the "little guys:"

1- States declare bankruptcy and no longer have to pay pensions, a la what American Airlines is likely about to do.

2- Social Security abruptly ends after years of raised retirement ages and other delays to the inevitable. The government has a much cheaper alternative that doesn't involve issuing people regular payments to do with as they please... something that stays in-house, like vouchers for government-provided housing, medical care and food.

3- Government takes over the medical field in the name of the public interest and thus controls all costs, research and production of medicine, the training and employment of doctors and nurses, availability of care, etc. Thus, no need for medicare.

As outrageous as these ideas sound, are they really far-fetched when there's enormous debt to pay?

[dwarthog]

Of course I do and under the Clinton plan it ALL would have been paid off by 2007. Do you not realize that in the $15 trillion of debt are those IOU's? A MAJORITY of our debt is held by social security and medicare not China. For being redeemable is a fantasy? That money was borrowed and has to be repaid, of course the teabaggers don't seem to think that debts that have been incurred should be paid, ie: tea party event in Vegas that the hotel had to sue the group for non-payment, Joe Walsh teabagger US CONGRESSMEN from Illinois and well known deadbeat to his own kids. How many teabagger leaders have declared bankruptcy? Even the teabaggers favorite singer did!

Under the "Clinton plan" it would all have been paid off? What in the hell are you talking about about?

Here is the "Clinton plan", US debt first year of presidency, 4,535,687,054,406, US debt last year of presidency, $5,662,216,013,697.

So if the great payoff you are talking about under the "Clinton plan" is the US debt, it would not have been paid off by 2007, even if you were to actually believe the "Clinton surplus", the existence of which is debatable, was something more than an anomaly since there have only been a small number of annual budget surpluses over the last 70 years.

[ictsooner7]

Under the "Clinton plan" it would all have been paid off? What in the hell are you talking about about?

Here is the "Clinton plan", US debt first year of presidency, 4,535,687,054,406, US debt last year of presidency, $5,662,216,013,697.

So if the great payoff you are talking about under the "Clinton plan" is the US debt, it would not have been paid off by 2007, even if you were to actually believe the "Clinton surplus", the existence of which is debatable, was something more than an anomaly since there have only been a small number of annual budget surpluses over the last 70 years.

More conservatives just making $hit up.

Fiscal Years 2000 to 2008

Year GDP-US$ billion Total Spending-fed$ billion Federal Deficit-total$ billion
2000 9951.5 1789.22 a -236.24 a
2001 10286.2 1863.19 a -128.24 a
2002 10642.3 2011.15 a 157.75 a
2003 11142.1 2160.12 a 377.59 a
2004 11867.8 2293.01 a 412.73 a
2005 12638.4 2472.20 a 318.34 a
2006 13398.9 2655.44 a 248.19 a
2007 14077.6 2728.94 a 160.94 a
2008 14441.4 2982.55 a 458.55 a


The Clinton Plan


December 28, 2000

Today, President Clinton will announce that The United States is on course to eliminate its public debt within the next decade. The Administration also announced that we are projected to pay down $237 billion in debt in 2001. Due in part to a strong economy and the President’s commitment to fiscal discipline, the federal fiscal condition has improved for an unprecedented nine consecutive years. Based upon today’s new economic and budget projections for the coming 10 years from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB):


The United States can be debt-free this decade. By dedicating the entire budget surplus to debt reduction, The United States can eliminate its publicly held debt by FY 2009. The next Administration and Congress will need to decide what priorities to address: eliminate the public debt by FY 2010 and still use part of the surplus for responsible tax cuts, prescription drug benefits for Medicare recipients, and investments in key priorities like education and health care.


The national debt is projected to be paid down by $237 billion this year. Under the budget President Clinton and Congress completed two weeks ago, the U.S. is projected to pay down $237 billion of the national debt in FY 2001.


The 4 year total debt paydown will be $600 billion. Over the last three years, we have already paid down $363 billion in debt. Therefore, The United States is on track to reduce the debt by $600 billion over four years, the largest four-year debt pay-down ever.


Record deficits have become record surpluses. This Administration has have moved the country from a deficit of $290 billion in FY 1992 to an expected surplus of $256 billion in FY 2001. Eight years ago, the Congressional Budget Office projected a $513 billion deficit in FY 2001. Thus, the fiscal picture is now projected to improve by $769 billion in FY 2001 alone.


Nine consecutive years of fiscal improvement. FY 2001 will be the fourth year in a row of overall surpluses and the second year in a row of a surplus without counting Social Security or Medicare. It will be the ninth consecutive year of fiscal improvement, the longest such period in history.

ON TRACK TO ELIMINATE THE DEBT THIS DECADE

The U.S. is on track to eliminate the publicly held debt this decade. Under OMB’s new baseline projection, the public debt would be eliminated in FY 2009. This budget "baseline" by definition includes no new initiatives or policy changes and therefore the entire budget surplus is dedicated to debt reduction (including the Social Security, Medicare, and on-budget surpluses). A fiscally responsible budget that includes new investments in moderate tax relief, a Medicare prescription drugs proposal, and key domestic priorities could eliminate the public debt by FY 2010.


Pay down of $600 billion in debt over four years. In FYs 1998, 1999, and 2000, the debt held by the public was reduced by $363 billion. The U.S. government is projected to pay down an additional $237 billion in debt held by the public this fiscal year alone (FY 2001). That will bring the total debt pay-down to $600 billion—the largest four-year debt pay-down in American history. In contrast, under the 12-year tenure of Presidents Reagan and Bush, the debt held by the public quadrupled.


The debt held by the public will be cut in half ($3.2 trillion lower) in FY 2001 than it was projected to be when President Clinton took office. In 1993, the debt held by the public was projected by the Office of Management and Budget to balloon to $6.4 trillion by FY 2001. Instead, shrinking deficits—and then the growing surpluses of the last four years—will bring the debt down to $3.2 trillion in FY 2001, $3.2 trillion less than projected in 1993. In FY 1993, the debt held by the public was 50 percent of GDP and projected to rise to 68 percent of GDP in FY 2001. Instead, it will be slashed to 31 percent of GDP this year and can be completely eliminated this decade.


Interest payments on the debt will be $166 billion lower than projected. In 1993, the net interest payments on the debt held by the public were projected to grow to $376 billion in FY 2001. Tough choices in 1993 and 1997 and a commitment to fiscal discipline have slashed this figure by $166 billion, a 44 percent reduction.

LARGEST UNIFIED SURPLUS EVER


Instead of a $513 billion deficit, there will be a $256 billion surplus this year. In 1992, the deficit in the federal budget was $290 billion—the largest dollar deficit in American history. In January 1993, the Congressional Budget Office projected that the deficit would grow to $513 billion by FY 2001. In fact, the unified budget will be in surplus by $256 billion in FY 2001—the fourth consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever, even after adjusting for inflation. Over 10 years, the non-Social Security surplus alone is estimated to be over $2.4 trillion. Not including Social Security and Medicare surpluses, the surplus is projected to be $1.9 trillion.


Largest unified surplus as a percent of GDP since 1948. The 2001 surplus is projected to be 2.5 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP)—the largest surplus as a ratio to the GDP since 1948.


The fourth consecutive year with a surplus for the first time in over 70 years. The FY 2001 surplus of $256 billion follows surpluses of $237 billion in FY 2000, $124 billion in FY 1999, and $69 billion in FY 1998. The last time The United States had four surpluses in a row was over 70 years ago, during 1927-30. The FY 2001 surplus will mark the ninth consecutive year of fiscal improvement. This is the longest run of consecutive years of improvement in American history, surpassing the pre-Clinton-Gore best of five straight years.

REDUCING SPENDING WHILE CUTTING TAXES FOR MIDDLE-INCOME FAMILIES


Federal spending as a share of the economy is the lowest since 1966. Spending restraint under President Clinton has brought federal spending down from 22 percent of GDP in 1992 to 18 percent of GDP in 2001, the lowest since 1966. At the same time, President Clinton has increased strategic investments in education, technology, and other areas that are vital to growth.


The smallest federal civilian workforce in 40 years. The Federal civilian workforce increased from the time when President Reagan took office to the time when President Bush left office. In contrast, since President Clinton and Vice President Gore took office, the Federal civilian workforce has been cut by 377,000—by nearly a fifth – and is now smaller than at any time since 1960.


While balancing the budget, running large surpluses and paying down the debt, the Clinton-Gore Administration has provided tax relief for working families. The tax cuts signed into law by the President in 1993 and 1997—including the expanded Earned Income Tax Credit, the $500 child tax credit, the $1,500 Hope Scholarship Tax Credit, and expanded IRAs—have cut taxes for American working families. Federal income taxes as a percentage of income for the typical American family have dropped to their lowest level in over 30 years.

What Fiscal Discipline Means For The United States


Lower interest rates cut mortgage payments by $2,000 a year for families with a $100,000 mortgage. As a result of President Clinton’s policy of deficit and debt reduction, it is estimated that a family with a home mortgage of $100,000 might expect to save roughly $2,000 per year in mortgage payments, effectively a large tax cut.


Lower interest rates cut car payments by $200 a year for families with a car loan.


Lower interest rates cut student loan payments by $200 a year for someone with a typical student loan.


Lower debt will help maintain strong economic growth. With the government no longer draining resources out of capital markets, businesses have more funds for productive investment. This has helped to fuel average real annual increase of more than 13 percent in private investment in equipment and software since 1993, including eight years in a row of double-digit growth. This compares to a 4.7 percent annual growth rate from 1981-92, a period that saw the debt held by the public quadruple.


Rising investment has contributed to an increase in productivity growth. Non-farm business productivity has grown at a 3.1 percent average annual rate for the last four years and 4.8 percent over the last year. This compares to 1.4 percent growth from the 1970s through the early 1990s.


Interest payments would be eliminated on the publicly held debt. Currently, we spend 11 cents of every federal dollar on interest payments. These payments, which were once projected to grow to 23 percent of all federal spending in 2010, could be eliminated by that time under a fiscally prudent budget.


Prepare for the retiring baby boomers. Paying off the debt will create room in the budget for the increased Social Security and Medicare costs when the baby boomers retire. It will also free up funds for investment, help keep interest rates low, and boost workers’ productivity and incomes. This fiscal discipline is the best way to prepare the government and the nation to meet the challenge of the retirement of the baby boom generation.

[badger]

Soooo... what exactly did the Senate do to fudge the bill that has the House saying they're not gonna vote for it now?

[dwarthog]

More conservatives just making $hit up.

Fiscal Years 2000 to 2008

Year GDP-US$ billion Total Spending-fed$ billion Federal Deficit-total$ billion
2000 9951.5 1789.22 a -236.24 a
2001 10286.2 1863.19 a -128.24 a
2002 10642.3 2011.15 a 157.75 a
2003 11142.1 2160.12 a 377.59 a
2004 11867.8 2293.01 a 412.73 a
2005 12638.4 2472.20 a 318.34 a
2006 13398.9 2655.44 a 248.19 a
2007 14077.6 2728.94 a 160.94 a
2008 14441.4 2982.55 a 458.55 a


Pie in the sky press release sent to the bit bucket where is deserves to be......

More liberal narrative designed to perpetuate myth's along with a predilection for avoiding the question of how this was going to be parlayed into paying off the national debt.


The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

Time and time again, anyone reading the mainstream news or reading articles on the Internet will read the claim that President Clinton not only balanced the budget, but had a surplus. This is then used as an argument to further highlight the fiscal irresponsibility of the federal government under the Bush administration.

The claim is generally made that Clinton had a surplus of $69 billion in FY1998, $123 billion in FY1999 and $230 billion in FY2000 . In that same link, Clinton claimed that the national debt had been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years, presumably FY1998, FY1999, and FY2000--though, interestingly, $360 billion is not the sum of the alleged surpluses of the three years in question ($69B + $123B + $230B = $422B, not $360B).

Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

[pphilfran]

First it should should have read Medicare not Medicaid - how incredibly uninformed you are, if social security and medicare were eliminated today the deficit would not change at all. Social Security and Medicare are self funded from separate taxes than the general fund. Of course the right always groups them pretending they are all the same. As for $15 trillion in deficits thank your own right wing conservative presidents starting with RONALD REAGAN who TRIPLED the deficit from $900 billion to $3 Trillion. Next in line is the first bush who added another $2 trillion in four short years and then the grand champion of all deficit raisers - the most conservative president in our history..............we all know the story he started with a $238 Billion surplus left to him from a...wait for it..wait for it A DEMOCRAT!! and quickly turned it into a $500 billion dollar a year deficit adding a whopping $5 trillion to the deficit and throwing our country into a second republican depression.



As for the rest of it...i completely agree the people who cheated, lied and stole money that got bailed out then complained people where mad at them for it, should be in jail forever. We should run anyone out of office who has or will take a dime from wall street.


whoops...

From the SS Trustees report.... http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html


Social Security expenditures exceeded the program’s non-interest income in 2010 for the first time since 1983. The $49 billion deficit last year (excluding interest income) and $46 billion projected deficit in 2011 are in large part due to the weakened economy and to downward income adjustments that correct for excess payroll tax revenue credited to the trust funds in earlier years. This deficit is expected to shrink to about $20 billion for years 2012-2014 as the economy strengthens. After 2014, cash deficits are expected to grow rapidly as the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. Through 2022, the annual cash deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury. Because these redemptions will be less than interest earnings, trust fund balances will continue to grow. After 2022, trust fund assets will be redeemed in amounts that exceed interest earnings until trust fund reserves are exhausted in 2036, one year earlier than was projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2085.

Relative to the combined Social Security Trust Funds, the Medicare HI Trust Fund faces a more immediate funding shortfall, though its longer term financial outlook is better under the assumptions employed in this report.

Medicare costs (including both HI and SMI expenditures) are projected to grow substantially from approximately 3.6 percent of GDP in 2010 to 5.5 percent of GDP by 2035, and to increase gradually thereafter to about 6.2 percent of GDP by 2085.

The projected 75-year actuarial deficit in the HI Trust Fund is 0.79 percent of taxable payroll, up from 0.66 percent projected in last year’s report.

The projected 75-year actuarial deficit in the HI Trust Fund is 0.79 percent of taxable payroll, up from 0.66 percent projected in last year’s report. The HI fund fails the test of short-range financial adequacy, as projected assets drop below one year’s projected expenditures early in 2011. The fund also continues to fail the long-range test of close actuarial balance. Medicare’s HI Trust Fund is expected to pay out more in hospital benefits and other expenditures than it receives in income in all future years. The projected date of HI Trust Fund exhaustion is 2024, five years earlier than estimated in last year’s report, at which time dedicated revenues would be sufficient to pay 90 percent of HI costs. The share of HI expenditures that can be financed with HI dedicated revenues is projected to decline slowly to 75 percent in 2045, and then to rise slowly, reaching 88 percent in 2085. Over 75 years, HI’s actuarial imbalance is estimated to be equivalent to 21 percent of tax receipts or 17 percent of program outlays.

[pphilfran]

That's not what you said. What you said was the social security and medicare caused the $15 trillion defict which is a myth perpetuated by the right to try to kill social security and medicare.

It is surprising that someone that thinks they are expert does not seem to know the difference between debt and deficit...

[badger]

It is surprising that someone that thinks they are expert does not seem to know the difference between debt and deficit...

That would be quite a deficit if it were $15 trillion. It's quite a debt as-is --- $15 trillion! Crazy how much overspending can rack up over time :(

It kind of reminds me of stories of embezzlement...all very sad. Basically, people will cut themselves small checks over time, never thinking it is a very significant amount because, after all, it's just a small check.

Then, by the time they're caught, they've amassed six figures of stealing over time, a figure that will be difficult to repay, because, after all, lack of personal money for things like gambling, expensive tastes or the desire to give lavish gifts or whatever was their reason for embezzlement in the first place.

Two cases close to me was my former church in Wisconsin and a top ex-payroll accountant in the Wisconsin offices of Goodwill. Bank employees trusted our church financial officer, so when she asked for donation checks to be cashed instead of deposited, they figured there was a good reason, not that she was taking it to a local tavern for an illegal gambling machine to give her a jackpot. In the Goodwill case, the financial officer was writing herself and her husband's business checks to cover her local casino losses, as well as her travel and gifting habits. Apparently losing an inheritance she promised for her grandkid's college education via gambling had caused her to do it. Not really sure about the church official, but it severely shook our congregation at the time because nobody thought that person was capable of it.

With the government, there is a large amount of trust that the loans will be repaid, that the social security they're drawing from our tiny, hard-earned paychecks will someday get returned to us in our elder years when we'll need it more. I hope this isn't another case of misplaced trust.

[pphilfran]

That would be quite a deficit if it were $15 trillion. It's quite a debt as-is --- $15 trillion! Crazy how much overspending can rack up over time :(Give us a few years and we will get that 15 trillion deficit...

[Sooner5030]

I am not confused here is what you said "Would guess only a liberal progressive would call $15 trillion in debt "popular and successful".." I was talking about SS and medicare being popular and successful, you said how is $15t in debt popular and successful, you linked SS and Medicare to the debt. How am I confused? Trying to change history again.

You have confused me with some other poster. I never said what you quoted. Check your meds please.

[pphilfran]

A booming economy and smart taxation got Clinton's revenue up to 20.6% of GDP

How much of that revenue increase is due to personal taxes outside of cap gains?
How much of that revenue increase is attributed to cap gains?

[badger]

As embarrassing as Clinton's sexcapades were, I do think he did some things that helped steer the economy in the right direction, but the political dagger that George H.W. Bush stabbed himself with by raising taxes was probably the initial step. I think history will respect him for it, even if he went back on his "no new taxes" pledge and was voted out for it.

I still remember my parents griping about the gas tax that he imposed for a few weeks. It must have raised TONS of revenue. Basically, it was 10 cents added on per gallon, but at the time, gas up in Wisconsin was still $1.20 or so. $1.30 just just unthinkable at the time (then by about 2000, we were seeing $1.50 to $1.99... and I imagine it's over $3 up there now, heh).

[badger]

You have confused me with some other poster. I never said what you quoted. Check your meds please.

Hey! He did the same thing to me! Ict man, you really gotta stop doing that.

[Ton Loc]

ICT is Dale's evil twin brother. Mysteriously, you never see them both in the same place (or thread).

Also, I'm tired of all the bills/laws/measures having other crap tied to them. Why can't we have the pipeline and the tax thing be seperate?

Dumbass politicians, they think this is the only way to work out a compromise.

[pphilfran]

Profit or loss from SS does end up in the yearly deficit...and then transfers over to the long term debt...

All data I will supply will be from the Obama budget Historical Tables...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

Let's look at Clinton's 2000 data....

Table 2.3

Revenue as a % of GDP was 20.6%...outlays of 18.2%...damn good!

Now go to table 3.1

Within that 18.2% of outlays we find social security listed...409 billion, part of the 11.4% of GDP that was paid within Human Resources....

When SS was in the black it hid other problem areas...now that it is in the red we will see a double hit...it ain't balancing out some other loser and it will now be in the red to boot...






Table 2.3..

[pphilfran]

Now let's look at how Clinton got his big revenue increase...

I will look at individual income taxes first (% of GDP)...table 2.3....same budget source....

Look at that...he went from the mid 7's to 10%....
1980 9.0
1981 9.4
1982 9.2
1983 8.4
1984 7.8
1985 8.1
1986 7.9
1987 8.4
1988 8.0
1989 8.3
1990 8.1
1991 7.9
1992 7.6
1993 7.7
1994 7.8
1995 8.0
1996 8.5
1997 9.0
1998 9.6
1999 9.6
2000 10.2

What happened to cap gains during the same time frame, they are included in the personal income tax total listed above...

The budget does not break that out so I use a different source...

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/listdocs.cfm?topic2id=30

Go down to historical data and open Historical Capital Gains and Taxes

Wow....look at that...from 2% to 6,5?...

1980 2.66
1981 2.59
1982 2.77
1983 3.47
1984 3.57
1985 4.08
1986 7.35
1987 3.13
1988 3.19
1989 2.81
1990 2.13
1991 1.86
1992 2.00
1993 2.28
1994 2.16
1995 2.43
1996 3.33
1997 4.38
1998 5.18
1999 5.91
2000 6.47

Now..take those cap gains revenue and subject it out of the overall revenue and we find personal income taxes went down...even with the tax increase...they went down...during a booming economy....they went down....to below the historical average...

1980 9.0 2.66 6.34
1981 9.4 2.59 6.81
1982 9.2 2.77 6.43
1983 8.4 3.47 4.93
1984 7.8 3.57 4.23
1985 8.1 4.08 4.02
1986 7.9 7.35 0.55
1987 8.4 3.13 5.27
1988 8.0 3.19 4.81
1989 8.3 2.81 5.49
1990 8.1 2.13 5.97
1991 7.9 1.86 6.04
1992 7.6 2.00 5.60
1993 7.7 2.28 5.42
1994 7.8 2.16 5.64
1995 8.0 2.43 5.57
1996 8.5 3.33 5.17
1997 9.0 4.38 4.62
1998 9.6 5.18 4.42
1999 9.6 5.91 3.69
2000 10.2 6.47 3.73

What would we contribute the 90's drastic increase in cap gains revenue?

Please keep in mind that the max cap gains rate dropped from about 29% to 21% from 1997 to 2000....

[ictsooner7]

Debt/deficit at $15 trillion you know what I’m talking about. As for anything Clinton did, HE balanced the budget, grew the economy and created more jobs per year than any other president in recent history. BIG Bill Clinton created 23 million jobs while cutting the federal work force. Your boy Ronnie created only 16 million, half a million less per year than Jimmy Carter who added only a few hundred billion to the debt while Ronnie added $2.1 TRILLION to the debt. Simple fact is that democrats are better at the economy and creating jobs than republicans.

[ictsooner7]

As embarrassing as Clinton's sexcapades were, I do think he did some things that helped steer the economy in the right direction, but the political dagger that George H.W. Bush stabbed himself with by raising taxes was probably the initial step. I think history will respect him for it, even if he went back on his "no new taxes" pledge and was voted out for it.

I still remember my parents griping about the gas tax that he imposed for a few weeks. It must have raised TONS of revenue. Basically, it was 10 cents added on per gallon, but at the time, gas up in Wisconsin was still $1.20 or so. $1.30 just just unthinkable at the time (then by about 2000, we were seeing $1.50 to $1.99... and I imagine it's over $3 up there now, heh).

......................so you didn't support McCain or supporting Newt now?

As for gas prices around 1/3 of the price of oil is because of speculators, ie: wall street firms.

[pphilfran]

Debt/deficit at $15 trillion you know what I’m talking about. As for anything Clinton did, HE balanced the budget, grew the economy and created more jobs per year than any other president in recent history. BIG Bill Clinton created 23 million jobs while cutting the federal work force. Your boy Ronnie created only 16 million, half a million less per year than Jimmy Carter who added only a few hundred billion to the debt while Ronnie added $2.1 TRILLION to the debt. Simple fact is that democrats are better at the economy and creating jobs than republicans.

Clinton did a great job cutting expenditures...as far as revenue he pretty well stayed out of the way and let the computer age drive efficiency levels which grew profits which grew overall fed revenue...

[pphilfran]

Why did the Clinton higher income tax rates not translate into higher revenue?

Why did cap gains revenue increase even though the max rate was reduced?

[badger]

Debt/deficit at $15 trillion you know what I’m talking about.

I'm sorry man, but until you own up to your own mistakes a little bit better than this, I'm through talking to you. You repeatedly have called out people here for "lying" and demand that they apologize, and you brush off your own mistakes without so much as a "my bad."

[pphilfran]

It ain't good when you gotz Momma Badger on your azz...

[ictsooner7]

I'm sorry man, but until you own up to your own mistakes a little bit better than this, I'm through talking to you. You repeatedly have called out people here for "lying" and demand that they apologize, and you brush off your own mistakes without so much as a "my bad."


OK, deficit/debt is a mistake, MY BAD. I didn’t try to claim that I didn’t say deficit or deny saying something that I said. There is a difference between making a mistake and flat out lying about a previous position you took or statement you made. They are two totally different things.

[badger]

OK, deficit/debt is a mistake, MY BAD. I didn’t try to claim that I didn’t say deficit or deny saying something that I said. There is a difference between making a mistake and flat out lying about a previous position you took or statement you made. They are two totally different things.

Dude, you have TWICE called posters out for posts that you have said that they made, but they didn't! Surely you see how people would have a problem with that, especially with the way you phrased said calling out. It wasn't "I disagree with what you said here," but rather, it was more like screaming "LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" at them. :(

So, in addition to admitting mistakes, can we also be a bit nicer when pointing out the political differences of others, realizing that politics are a fickle, touchy subject for many?

[ictsooner7]

Why did the Clinton higher income tax rates not translate into higher revenue?

Why did cap gains revenue increase even though the max rate was reduced?

I'm just not seeing it..............

(in millions of dollars)

year Receipts
1992 1,091,328
1993 1,154,471
1994 1,258,721
1995 1,351,932
1996 1,453,177
1997 1,579,423
1998 1,721,955
1999 1,827,645
2000 2,025,457
2001 1,991,426
2002 1,853,395
2003 1,782,532
2004 1,880,279

[dwarthog]

[QUOTE=pphilfran;3427638]Why did the Clinton higher income tax rates not translate into higher revenue?

Why did cap gains revenue increase even though the max rate was reduced?[/QUOTE

I haven't looked for the data but there was an interesting, "once in a lifetime", phenomenon that was taking place toward the end of the Clinton presidency.

That would be my guess.

[ictsooner7]

Dude, you have TWICE called posters out for posts that you have said that they made, but they didn't! Surely you see how people would have a problem with that, especially with the way you phrased said calling out. It wasn't "I disagree with what you said here," but rather, it was more like screaming "LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" at them. :(

So, in addition to admitting mistakes, can we also be a bit nicer when pointing out the political differences of others, realizing that politics are a fickle, touchy subject for many?


Once again, you made statements then later tried to deny making them. When I called you out on it you said you never made that statement, even through it's in black and white. Like I said...........there is a difference between making a mistake and claiming you didn't say something that you said perviously! What part of that do you not understand. I call you along with other a lair when you and they claim, I never said that when there is proof that you did.

[badger]

Once again, you made statements then later tried to deny making them. When I called you out on it you said you never made that statement, even through it's in black and white. Like I said...........there is a difference between making a mistake and claiming you didn't say something that you said perviously! What part of that do you not understand. I call you along with other a lair when you and they claim, I never said that when there is proof that you did.

I said it before, and I'll say it again:

I did NOT say what you said that I said about the Texas health care system.

You will find that I did not edit any previous posts to cover up what I (never) said (allegedly) about 900 percent blah blah Texas doctors blah blah.

I challenge you to prove otherwise.

[okie52]

Once again, you made statements then later tried to deny making them. When I called you out on it you said you never made that statement, even through it's in black and white. Like I said...........there is a difference between making a mistake and claiming you didn't say something that you said perviously! What part of that do you not understand. I call you along with other a lair when you and they claim, I never said that when there is proof that you did.

SAVE AMERICA AND VOTE DEMOCRAT!!

[ictsooner7]

I said it before, and I'll say it again:

I did NOT say what you said that I said about the Texas health care system.

You will find that I did not edit any previous posts to cover up what I (never) said (allegedly) about 900 percent blah blah Texas doctors blah blah.

I challenge you to prove otherwise.

I told you my mistake before. If I didn't there it is.

[badger]

SAVE AMERICA AND VOTE DEMOCRAT!!

LOL... but I don't necessarily disagree. I have always liked the idea of a divided government forced to compromise a little both ways to get stuff done. If we vote in nothing but Republican majorities and a Republican president in 2012, we might as well put Sideshow Bob up on the podium to cackle at us :)

ayO1wtXbh_Q

:D


I told you my mistake before. If I didn't there it is.

OK fine, water under the bridge and stuff.

[ictsooner7]

OK fine, water under the bridge and stuff.

thanks..............

[okie52]

LOL... but I don't necessarily disagree. I have always liked the idea of a divided government forced to compromise a little both ways to get stuff done. If we vote in nothing but Republican majorities and a Republican president in 2012, we might as well put Sideshow Bob up on the podium to cackle at us :)



No matter how comical I can't laugh myself into voting exclusively for dems. Not that I hold the repubs in particular high regard, either. If the bottom line was repubs ruled congress and Obama was still in the white house I could live with that. Just another 4 years of gridlock.

[badger]

No matter how comical I can't laugh myself into voting exclusively for dems. Not that I hold the repubs in particular high regard, either. If the bottom line was repubs ruled congress and Obama was still in the white house I could live with that. Just another 4 years of gridlock.

Yeah, I won't laugh myself into declaring utter and total allegiance to one party or another either, hehe. Oklahoma gets ignored by both parties at election and give-stuff-away times because they know we're 100 percent red and not changing. All-blue states have this problem too.

Getting back on topic and related to what I just said... why does Obama need to delay the pipeline decision just because the unions and environmentalists are divided. They're 100 percent blue! What are they gonna do, threaten to vote for Rick Perry? Have an angry look on their face when they check the "straight democratic party vote" box on the ballot? Join the occupiers in shouting "mic check" repeatedly? Ooooo, scary.

Mr. President, make up your mind. Even the Senate Democrats voted for you to move the pipeline forward in the most recent payroll bill.

[okie52]

Yeah, I won't laugh myself into declaring utter and total allegiance to one party or another either, hehe. Oklahoma gets ignored by both parties at election and give-stuff-away times because they know we're 100 percent red and not changing. All-blue states have this problem too.

Getting back on topic and related to what I just said... why does Obama need to delay the pipeline decision just because the unions and environmentalists are divided. They're 100 percent blue! What are they gonna do, threaten to vote for Rick Perry? Have an angry look on their face when they check the "straight democratic party vote" box on the ballot? Join the occupiers in shouting "mic check" repeatedly? Ooooo, scary.

Mr. President, make up your mind. Even the Senate Democrats voted for you to move the pipeline forward in the most recent payroll bill.

I haven't really followed this story that closely (surprising). Jobs are only important if they are going to support you. There are thousands of oil jobs to be had out there but Obama doesn't want to make that industry any stronger.

[badger]

I haven't really followed this story that closely (surprising). Jobs are only important if they are going to support you. There are thousands of oil jobs to be had out there but Obama doesn't want to make that industry any stronger.

It needs to be stronger on the homefront, definitely... not to drive up record profits or whatever, but to make American gasoline prices cheaper. A report surfaced today that the average family spent about 8.4 percent of their income on gas this past year as nationwide prices were around $3.50 a gallon. It was apparently the highest dollar among ever, but almost the same household income percentage spending as those evil early 1980s that I didn't have to live through but just heard about later.

Link (http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=49&articleid=20111219_49_0_NEWYOR452655)

On one hand, it's good to see people finally cutting back on gas buying and looking at cheaper and more enviro-friendly alternatives, but on the other hand, its crap like this that holds our economy back.

[okie52]

It needs to be stronger on the homefront, definitely... not to drive up record profits or whatever, but to make American gasoline prices cheaper. A report surfaced today that the average family spent about 8.4 percent of their income on gas this past year as nationwide prices were around $3.50 a gallon. It was apparently the highest dollar among ever, but almost the same household income percentage spending as those evil early 1980s that I didn't have to live through but just heard about later.

Link (http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=49&articleid=20111219_49_0_NEWYOR452655)

On one hand, it's good to see people finally cutting back on gas buying and looking at cheaper and more enviro-friendly alternatives, but on the other hand, its crap like this that holds our economy back.

I don't know if US production will ever drive down oil and gas prices given that China and INdia are demand players now. But it can help move us towards energy independence and significantly reduce our trade deficit while providing jobs, tax revenues, and royalty income for individuals and the government. There really isn't another industry out there than can approach that.

[ictsooner7]

It needs to be stronger on the homefront, definitely... not to drive up record profits or whatever, but to make American gasoline prices cheaper. A report surfaced today that the average family spent about 8.4 percent of their income on gas this past year as nationwide prices were around $3.50 a gallon. It was apparently the highest dollar among ever, but almost the same household income percentage spending as those evil early 1980s that I didn't have to live through but just heard about later.

Link (http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=49&articleid=20111219_49_0_NEWYOR452655)

On one hand, it's good to see people finally cutting back on gas buying and looking at cheaper and more enviro-friendly alternatives, but on the other hand, its crap like this that holds our economy back.

The figures I’ve seen on the job creation don’t even hit five figures and those are “temporary”. The problem with that oil is that it is so costly to produce, around $90 a barrel is the economically viable point. Look at what $90 a barrel oil is doing to our economy, having this will lock the price in at $90 and above. That pipeline is too expensive to not be profitable to certain private oil refineries.

[pphilfran]

The figures I’ve seen on the job creation don’t even hit five figures and those are “temporary”. The problem with that oil is that it is so costly to produce, around $90 a barrel is the economically viable point. Look at what $90 a barrel oil is doing to our economy, having this will lock the price in at $90 and above. That pipeline is too expensive to not be profitable to certain private oil refineries.

Yep, they are temp jobs...just like the trillion we spent on stimulus projects....

This project will not lock in prices at $90 and above....China and India sucking up more and more crude each year will help lock prices in at $90 and above....

[ictsooner7]

Yep, they are temp jobs...just like the trillion we spent on stimulus projects....

This project will not lock in prices at $90 and above....China and India sucking up more and more crude each year will help lock prices in at $90 and above....

Thank you for making my point, republicans hated the temp jobs when Obama was trying to create them, but just as soon as it is the rights idea, they are fine.

[pphilfran]

Thank you for making my point, republicans hated the temp jobs when Obama was trying to create them, but just as soon as it is the rights idea, they are fine.

Let's see...the fed stimulus cost the US taxpayer money from today and far into the future...

The pipeline stimulus won't cost the taxpayer a penny...

Personally I had no problem with the stimulus money...though I was disappointed in where a significant portion of the money was spent...new sidewalks in Hastings wouldn't have been in my stimulus package...

[badger]

Update: They delayed the vote.

Link (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-congress-payroll-20111219,0,3213663.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews%2Fpolitics+%28 L.A.+Times+-+Politics%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher)

They are expected to vote tomorrow, but they can't wait around and negotiate forever --- I'm sure they want their holiday vacation, but more importantly, everything stops Dec. 31 without an extension, from the payroll tax to unemployment benefits.

[badger]

What do they say when they block a shot in basketball?

REJECTED!

Link (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=335&articleid=20111220_335_0_WSIGOh914800)

I guess our elected officials don't want to be on holiday vacation after all, hehe.

[badger]

So... any predictions how this will end?

The Senate, in general, is a very arrogant group that is probably very proud of the fact that the House is the one that seemingly effed things up, not them. When you're only 100 strong and get six years in office compared to those hundred of widdle baby reps and their dinky 2-year terms, it's probably natural to feel that you're more exclusive, more important, and better than the House anyway.

But quite frankly, the arrogance in this situation is pretty appalling --- you vote and then leave for holiday. You left the House holding the bag. You ate dinner then skipped out on the check, forcing the House to pay. Other generality statements on leaving before your job was done and leaving someone else with the work blah blah blah.

My prediction: No settlement, but lots of finger pointing and blame game.

And the tax cuts and unemployment benefits expire.

[dwarthog]

The Senate still hasn't passed a budget either.

Sad part about this whole deal is the tax cut they are fighting over really doesn't amount to much for the average tax payer.

Other than a bunch of fools demagoguing the issue, it's pretty much a waste to time.

[badger]

The Senate still hasn't passed a budget either.

Sad part about this whole deal is the tax cut they are fighting over really doesn't amount to much for the average tax payer.

Other than a bunch of fools demagoguing the issue, it's pretty much a waste to time.

On average about $40 per paycheck, or $1,000 a year.

Link (http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/21/payroll-tax-cut-standoffs-impact-what-40-a-paycheck-means-to-you/)

If the standoff continues, I think it will have more of an impact, because when you think about it, $1,000 per year is about what Americans pay for gasoline on average also (actually probably closer to $1200 or $1400). This would be just another thing that they'd cut back on spending... and the economy sinks even more.

Then again, the government seems to want to spend more money, so this is one way for them to get it.

[ictsooner7]

So... any predictions how this will end?

The Senate, in general, is a very arrogant group that is probably very proud of the fact that the House is the one that seemingly effed things up, not them. When you're only 100 strong and get six years in office compared to those hundred of widdle baby reps and their dinky 2-year terms, it's probably natural to feel that you're more exclusive, more important, and better than the House anyway.

But quite frankly, the arrogance in this situation is pretty appalling --- you vote and then leave for holiday. You left the House holding the bag. You ate dinner then skipped out on the check, forcing the House to pay. Other generality statements on leaving before your job was done and leaving someone else with the work blah blah blah.

My prediction: No settlement, but lots of finger pointing and blame game.

And the tax cuts and unemployment benefits expire.

This is not the senate’s arrogance it’s the teabaggers in the house. An agreement was made and Boner said he could deliver the votes. When he got on a conference call with fellow repubs they threw a fit and torpedoed the deal. Saying the Senate is a very arrogant group that voted and then left for the break is just regurgitating boners talking points. What you fail to understand is there was an agreement with the house leadership and boner is too incompetent to deliver his own party. Republicants are simply too incompetent to govern. A wide vast majority of Americans, including a majority of REPUBLICANS want the holiday tax extended and the millionaires tax added to pay for it.

"But the Capitol was emptying out fast, and the Senate showed no inclination to return, having already passed a bipartisan two-month tax cut it thought had settled the matter."

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/12/20/2555403/obama-blames-gop-for-upcoming.html#storylink=cpy

[dwarthog]

On average about $40 per paycheck, or $1,000 a year.

Link (http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/21/payroll-tax-cut-standoffs-impact-what-40-a-paycheck-means-to-you/)

If the standoff continues, I think it will have more of an impact, because when you think about it, $1,000 per year is about what Americans pay for gasoline on average also (actually probably closer to $1200 or $1400). This would be just another thing that they'd cut back on spending... and the economy sinks even more.

Then again, the government seems to want to spend more money, so this is one way for them to get it.

Just to be pedantic, that would be a bi-weekly paycheck.

Weekly approximately 20 bucks.

But, I get your point.

In the big bucket view there is some value, but is it worth it in that it is coming out of a already depleted bucket of money ostensibly set aside for the future? Seems ill conceived IMO.

[pphilfran]

Get something done or work Christmas Eve and Christmas Day....toss in New Years for the hell of it...

[badger]

This is not the senate’s arrogance it’s the teabaggers in the house.

Agree, but I still think the Senate overall is kind of being arrogant :)


A wide vast majority of Americans, including a majority of REPUBLICANS want the holiday tax extended and the millionaires tax added to pay for it.

I think it would be political suicide by some of them and they are kind of scared, with an election year coming up, but the same could be said for some Dems and their own special interest groups on certain issues (like Obama and the pipeline)


Just to be pedantic, that would be a bi-weekly paycheck.

Weekly approximately 20 bucks.

But, I get your point.

In the big bucket view there is some value, but is it worth it in that it is coming out of a already depleted bucket of money ostensibly set aside for the future? Seems ill conceived IMO.

I think it's just the principle at this point --- they want to throw the middle class a bone, even a tiny one. I have always maintained that people will make the worst decisions based on principle while exclaiming "It's the PRINCIPLE!" and that is no different here.

I still think that there's no agreement by Jan. 1 and the tax cuts and unemployment benefits expire.

[pphilfran]

You are pretty sharp...fer a gurl...

[hawaii 5-0]

I hope the House does nothing, let the Bill fail and watch the fires burn.

Let's see who the House Repugs are really representing.

5-0

[pphilfran]

I hope the House does nothing, let the Bill fail and watch the fires burn.

Let's see who the House Repugs are really representing.

5-0

They should all be working 24/7 till they get the job done..come Christmas and they all haul azz we will see that all of them think it is less important than days off...

Many millions of people work Christmas...these fools should not be the exception...

[hawaii 5-0]

They should all be working 24/7 till they get the job done..come Christmas and they all haul azz we will see that all of them think it is less important than days off...

Many millions of people work Christmas...these fools should not be the exception...


Hear hear !!! No work, no pay.

5-0

[soonercruiser]

This is not the senate’s arrogance it’s the teabaggers in the house. An agreement was made and Boner said he could deliver the votes. When he got on a conference call with fellow repubs they threw a fit and torpedoed the deal. Saying the Senate is a very arrogant group that voted and then left for the break is just regurgitating boners talking points. What you fail to understand is there was an agreement with the house leadership and boner is too incompetent to deliver his own party. Republicants are simply too incompetent to govern. A wide vast majority of Americans, including a majority of REPUBLICANS want the holiday tax extended and the millionaires tax added to pay for it.

"But the Capitol was emptying out fast, and the Senate showed no inclination to return, having already passed a bipartisan two-month tax cut it thought had settled the matter."

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/12/20/2555403/obama-blames-gop-for-upcoming.html#storylink=cpy

Sorry, but the facts are that the original agreement and handshake was for a year's extension of the tax cuts.
The Senate cut it back to 2 months. I reported how there was an agreement, until Reid talked to Obummer.
And, all the independant business groups say this is insanity that they can't plan the year ahead on....not even the next quarter's tax payments!

[soonercruiser]

Anybody catch the short video of the Nebraska Governor holding a news conference, saying that they have worked out their differences with TransCanada on the routing of the Keystone XL pipeline?


Nebraska governor signs bills to reroute Keystone pipeline
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/22/us-oil-pipeline-nebraska-idUSTRE7AL1M120111122

Nebraska governor supports efforts to speed up Keystone XL pipeline
http://www.newrushmoreradio.com/kbhb/sdr-kbhb-news-ne-keystone-pipeline-20111212,0,5130304.story

Nebraska Gov. OKs Alternative Keystone XL Route
http://news.yahoo.com/nebraska-gov-oks-alternative-keystone-xl-route-193218813.html

[ictsooner7]

Sorry, but the facts are that the original agreement and handshake was for a year's extension of the tax cuts.
The Senate cut it back to 2 months. I reported how there was an agreement, until Reid talked to Obummer.
And, all the independant business groups say this is insanity that they can't plan the year ahead on....not even the next quarter's tax payments!

Those are not the facts at all you are just making sh!t up. The republicans in the senate NEGOTIATED with the dems to come to an agreement with the house leadership agreeing to it and boner couldn't deliver the votes as PROMISED or 39 republican senators would not have voted for it!! What the hell did President OBAMA have to do with this teabagger screwup?

NOTHING!!!!!

Quit making shi!t up!!!!!!

From the Wall Street Jounal

Tuesday, the House rejected by a 229-193 vote a bill passed by the Senate that would have extended the payroll-tax break for two months while Congress tried to fashion a longer-term fix. The GOP-controlled House, upending a deal that appeared set just days earlier, also demanded that Senate leaders return to Washington and negotiate a longer extension of the tax break as well as expiring benefits for the long-term unemployed and Medicare payments to doctors.

Left out of the photo op: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the co-architect of the Senate’s two-month tax cut extension. He reached an agreement that has become a throbbing political headache for Boehner and has remained unusually silent as the partisan rancor and gridlock cause a year-end embarrassment for Congress. …
“This is a colossal fumble by the House Republicans,” said a senior Senate GOP aide, requesting anonymity to speak candidly about his own party. “Their inability to recognize a win is costing our party our long-held advantage on the key issue of tax relief. It’s time for Boehner and [House Majority Leader Eric] Cantor to look these rookies in the eye and explain how the game is won or lost.”

[badger]

Once again ict... please tone it down a tad. "quit making sh!t up" could very easily be replaced with a police "I believe you are mistaken," "I cordially disagree" or "I realize that you are a Republican, but..." :)

I do agree that Republicans may have miscalculated this one though... Democrats need to milk this as Republicans being for tax cuts for millionaires, but against a tax cut for working Americans. That might not be 100 percent true, but I think that would hit home with voters... and add pressure to the House to pass it.

But... I still think that there will be no agreement by Jan. 1's expiration date.

[ictsooner7]

Once again ict... please tone it down a tad. "quit making sh!t up" could very easily be replaced with a police "I believe you are mistaken," "I cordially disagree" or "I realize that you are a Republican, but..." :)

I do agree that Republicans may have miscalculated this one though... Democrats need to milk this as Republicans being for tax cuts for millionaires, but against a tax cut for working Americans. That might not be 100 percent true, but I think that would hit home with voters... and add pressure to the House to pass it.

But... I still think that there will be no agreement by Jan. 1's expiration date.

Don't tell me to tone it down. He is making sh!t up. There is nowhere that can back up that statement hence....making sh!t up. A mistake is saying misquoting a number, not making up an entire seperate set of facts, like President Obama wanting 2 months and there was never ever any agreement for a year.

[badger]

I'm not telling you to do anything, I'm politely asking you to please tone it down because while there are many things that many people will disagree on here, I don't think anyone is out for a crazy angry political fight, yknow?

If I had to guess, the House is kind of upset that their own version of the bill was not the one approved the Senate and that the Senate was trying to dictate what the House was going to do, not give-and-take or whatever. Thus, the argument over one year versus two months for a deal.

Perhaps the Republicans in the Senate struck a bipartisan deal, but I'm reminded of Oklahoma's once-divided legislature... a complete 50-50 split on the state Senate and Republicans controlled the state House, while Democratic Gov. Brad Henry still had either two or four years left. The next thing we know, Gov. Henry is doing a press conference with the House Democrats saying that they have the veto power and enough House votes to have the veto stand, and will use it if the House Democrats and the governor are not included in discussions on legislation.

My point in bringing up that story is that even though the Senate struck a bipartisan deal in the payroll tax extension, excluding the House from discussions was asking for trouble, which is what they in effect did by sending a bill to them and immediately leaving for holiday.

This entire situation stinks... which leads me to think that there is little hope of the Jan. 1 deadline getting met.

[ictsooner7]

I'm not telling you to do anything, I'm politely asking you to please tone it down because while there are many things that many people will disagree on here, I don't think anyone is out for a crazy angry political fight, yknow?

If I had to guess, the House is kind of upset that their own version of the bill was not the one approved the Senate and that the Senate was trying to dictate what the House was going to do, not give-and-take or whatever. Thus, the argument over one year versus two months for a deal.

Perhaps the Republicans in the Senate struck a bipartisan deal, but I'm reminded of Oklahoma's once-divided legislature... a complete 50-50 split on the state Senate and Republicans controlled the state House, while Democratic Gov. Brad Henry still had either two or four years left. The next thing we know, Gov. Henry is doing a press conference with the House Democrats saying that they have the veto power and enough House votes to have the veto stand, and will use it if the House Democrats and the governor are not included in discussions on legislation.

My point in bringing up that story is that even though the Senate struck a bipartisan deal in the payroll tax extension, excluding the House from discussions was asking for trouble, which is what they in effect did by sending a bill to them and immediately leaving for holiday.

This entire situation stinks... which leads me to think that there is little hope of the Jan. 1 deadline getting met.

again...............there was an agreement with the house leadership that the two month extention would be passed, so 39 republican senators voted yes on it. Either people on here are uniformed or just flat out making up a seperate set of facts. If you are uniformed PLEASE go do some research and find out the truth other than listen to limbaugh. Even the wall street journal agrees with me! This a colossal screwup on the part of the republicans in the house who could not deliver the votes boner promised!

[hawaii 5-0]

If the Senate had bipartisan support why hasn't the House fallen in line?

What's the holdup?

5-0

[badger]

I don't doubt you when you say that there were leaders in the House that thought there was a chance that the Senate bill could pass and might have insinuated as much when talking to the Senators... but then I'm reminded of yet another story... this time the most recent NBA lockout, where a player rep told the commish that he thought the players would go for a 50-50 split. So, commish took it to the owners, who didn't like it but wanted a deal and agreed... and then the player rep was told by the players not to accept less than 53. Whoops.

So... I am a naive little badger yes, but I don't think that there was shenanigans in place, but rather, reps exercising their right to vote as they chose to. Say Boehner promised the Senate that the House would pass it. Say Steve Spurrier promises Redskins fans a win over Dallas. Say McCain guarantees victory over Obama. Those all sound great, but it wasn't entirely in their hands. Boehner has to hope that the reps will cast their votes the way he thought they would, Spurrier has to hope that the players execute at Cowboys Stadium, McCain has to hope that the same thing that happened to Jesse Jackson in a Wisconsin primary will happen to Obama at the polls nationwide... whoops.

Thank you for toning it down :)

[ictsooner7]

If the Senate had bipartisan support why hasn't the House fallen in line?

What's the holdup?

5-0

Because they really don't want it because it would help the economy and improve the Presidents chances are reelection. As mitch said our number on priority is to make sure obama is a one term president. It's treasonous.

[ictsooner7]

I don't doubt you when you say that there were leaders in the House that thought there was a chance that the Senate bill could pass and might have insinuated as much when talking to the Senators... but then I'm reminded of yet another story... this time the most recent NBA lockout, where a player rep told the commish that he thought the players would go for a 50-50 split. So, commish took it to the owners, who didn't like it but wanted a deal and agreed... and then the player rep was told by the players not to accept less than 53. Whoops.

So... I am a naive little badger yes, but I don't think that there was shenanigans in place, but rather, reps exercising their right to vote as they chose to. Say Boehner promised the Senate that the House would pass it. Say Steve Spurrier promises Redskins fans a win over Dallas. Say McCain guarantees victory over Obama. Those all sound great, but it wasn't entirely in their hands. Boehner has to hope that the reps will cast their votes the way he thought they would, Spurrier has to hope that the players execute at Cowboys Stadium, McCain has to hope that the same thing that happened to Jesse Jackson in a Wisconsin primary will happen to Obama at the polls nationwide... whoops.

Thank you for toning it down :)

This is not how it works. 39 republican senators would NOT vote for a bill unless it was guaranteed to pass in the house. Either boner really screwed up by not checking with his caucus or more likely he did and they changed their minds. Either way this is a huge massive screwup by the republicans. Obama now has a firm lead over all candidates and are now in danger of losing the house.

It is just one more example of the republicans inability to govern.

From the Washington Post

The most recurring critique was that House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) did not sufficiently warn Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) about House opposition to the plan, allowing even some of the staunchest conservatives in the Senate to support the legislation.

[badger]

Obama now has a firm lead over all candidates and are now in danger of losing the house.

Agree on Obama, disagree on the House. How the economy fares this next year will really show what way the political tide turns.

[okie52]

Because they really don't want it because it would help the economy and improve the Presidents chances are reelection. As mitch said our number on priority is to make sure obama is a one term president. It's treasonous.

Do you really believe this tripe you regurgitate as though there is some underlying logic to any of it?

Hell there are a lot of dems whose main goals are to make sure a repub is a 1 term president. Treasonous?

And what is so bad about the tax cuts expiring and they return to the those sacred days of the Clinton tax rates? Well, of course, that would mean everyone's taxes would be raised but surely you must see that as a good thing...you know, that shared sacrifice the big O always talks about. The OMB even went so far as to say that having those tax rates would put $3,900,000,000,000 in the treasury over the next 10 years....$700,000,000,000 from the rich and $3,200,000,000,000 from all of the other taxpayers.

Now what could be more logically seen as treasonous is Obama loaning Brazil $10,000,000,000
to develop their offshore oil while shutting down the US coasts for oil exploration.

Surely the dem talking points have given you the scoop that we have tremendous reserves off of our coasts that would help us to move towards energy independence if only the shackles of Obama were removed. I'm sure you are also aware that over 50% of our trade deficit is due to imported oil and every drop of oil we produce here reduces that imbalance. For a job creator like Obama he has managed to miss the thousands of jobs that would come from developing our reserves along with the increased tax revenues and royalties that would fill the treasury. The only thing stopping it is Obama...now who is the traitor?

[ictsooner7]

Do you really believe this tripe you regurgitate as though there is some underlying logic to any of it?

Hell there are a lot of dems whose main goals are to make sure a repub is a 1 term president. Treasonous?

And what is so bad about the tax cuts expiring and they return to the those sacred days of the Clinton tax rates? Well, of course, that would mean everyone's taxes would be raised but surely you must see that as a good thing...you know, that shared sacrifice the big O always talks about. The OMB even went so far as to say that having those tax rates would put $3,900,000,000,000 in the treasury over the next 10 years....$700,000,000,000 from the rich and $3,200,000,000,000 from all of the other taxpayers.

Now what could be more logically seen as treasonous is Obama loaning Brazil $10,000,000,000
to develop their offshore oil while shutting down the US coasts for oil exploration.

Surely the dem talking points have given you the scoop that we have tremendous reserves off of our coasts that would help us to move towards energy independence if only the shackles of Obama were removed. I'm sure you are also aware that over 50% of our trade deficit is due to imported oil and every drop of oil we produce here reduces that imbalance. For a job creator like Obama he has managed to miss the thousands of jobs that would come from developing our reserves along with the increased tax revenues and royalties that would fill the treasury. The only thing stopping it is Obama...now who is the traitor?

Wanting America to fail and doing everything to ensure it is treason. You parties leader said “I want Obama to fail”. The note HW Bush left for Clinton said, good luck and I hope you succeed, because if the president fails America fails. The thrice or four time married hillybilly heroin addict traitor told his party use every parliamentarian tactic you can use to thwart anything the dems want to do. Like good little children the republicans did as rush told them. As for off shore drilling…………..the oil companies have ¾ of the off shore leases they own untouched. Why didn’t bush let them drill in his long eight years with six of them having huge majorities to push it through? Why, because most of the leases your complaining about the locals don’t want it to be drilled because of effect on tourism, which is their primary business. B!tch McConnell said it out loud, our number one legislative priority is to make sure the PRESIDENT is a one term president. Making sure the country doesn’t fail isn’t number one? Getting people back to work isn’t number one? TREASON.

[ictsooner7]

Now what could be more logically seen as treasonous is Obama loaning Brazil $10,000,000,000
to develop their offshore oil while shutting down the US coasts for oil exploration.

Now lets talk about this. Typical of the right to totally make stuff up.

This is from junior college dropout glenn crybaby beck. Lets get some basic facts straight, first it was $2 billion not $10 billion, funny how the number climbs to make it look worse. Second, this was done by Export-Import bank of the United States, there is no presidential authorization. It was approved by a five member board on April 14, 2009, ALL OF WHOM WERE APPOINTED BY………………..WAIT FOR IT…………….WAIT FOR IT…………………GEORGE W. BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! President Obama does not appove any loans from the bank, Brazil was going to drill anyway and the loan was to try to influence them to buy American drilling equipment.

It’s called Google, I‘m sure you’ve heard of it. Use it and look up the truth before you go posting some crap lies beck or limbagh tells you, then you go make yourself look foolish by regurgitating them as facts. Feel free to use the link below to the TRUTH!!!!!


http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/braziloil.asp

[dwarthog]

Those are not the facts at all you are just making sh!t up. The republicans in the senate NEGOTIATED with the dems to come to an agreement with the house leadership agreeing to it and boner couldn't deliver the votes as PROMISED or 39 republican senators would not have voted for it!! What the hell did President OBAMA have to do with this teabagger screwup?

NOTHING!!!!!

Quit making shi!t up!!!!!!

From the Wall Street Jounal

Tuesday, the House rejected by a 229-193 vote a bill passed by the Senate that would have extended the payroll-tax break for two months while Congress tried to fashion a longer-term fix. The GOP-controlled House, upending a deal that appeared set just days earlier, also demanded that Senate leaders return to Washington and negotiate a longer extension of the tax break as well as expiring benefits for the long-term unemployed and Medicare payments to doctors.

Left out of the photo op: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the co-architect of the Senate’s two-month tax cut extension. He reached an agreement that has become a throbbing political headache for Boehner and has remained unusually silent as the partisan rancor and gridlock cause a year-end embarrassment for Congress. …
“This is a colossal fumble by the House Republicans,” said a senior Senate GOP aide, requesting anonymity to speak candidly about his own party. “Their inability to recognize a win is costing our party our long-held advantage on the key issue of tax relief. It’s time for Boehner and [House Majority Leader Eric] Cantor to look these rookies in the eye and explain how the game is won or lost.”


Sorry, but those are the facts. You continue to remain persistently ill informed of facts, blinded by your allegiance to all things Democratic.

Like a good automaton, you continue to play the roll of political minion to the letter.

Here are the facts.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/13/news/la-pn-house-passes-payroll-tax-bill-20111213


A payroll tax cut package engineered by House Speaker John A. Boehner was overwhelmingly approved by Republicans despite a veto threat from President Obama, escalating a year-end showdown over extending the benefit for 160 million American workers.

Passage of the measure Tuesday was a momentary victory for the speaker, who has struggled to get reluctant Republicans on board for the tax break, which puts a $1,000 in average workers' pockets. It was approved 234-193, with 224 Republicans and 10 Democrats.

But the Republican win is expected to be short lived, as the bill has limited chances in the Senate, where Democrats oppose the GOP priorities that Boehner added to the bill to win Republican votes, including one to accelerate the controversial Keystone XL pipeline.

The tax break expires on Dec. 31, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) warned Boehner in a phone call that GOP leaders have spent too much time catering to their conservative flank rather than negotiating with Democrats on a compromise.

"This is what I told him: we are not going to finish the work of our country this year unless we work together," Reid said. "They are wasting time catering to the 'tea party' when they should be working with Democrats on a bipartisan package that can pass both houses."

To bring Republicans to the table, Democrats have slow-walked an unrelated year-end spending bill that is needed to keep the government running, preventing the GOP-led House from finishing its work and leaving town for the holidays.

Such a strategy is risky, as Congress must approve the funding bill or the federal government will shut down on Friday. But the leverage proved irresistible. Obama, in strategizing with Reid over the weekend, insisted the bills be linked. Obama said that "nothing gets done until everything gets done," according to a senior administration official.

Republicans were caught off guard by the move, and thought they had a handshake agreement with Democrats on the spending bill. But Democrats said unresolved issues remained – including provisions on abortion, travel to Cuba and funding levels for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which plays a role in Wall Street regulation.

[badger]

Yeah... amazing how handshake agreements can fall apart when things turn sour, eh? I think that the ex-Kentucky basketball coach was caught in a similar situation after getting let go. "Um, you promised that you'd pay me XXX" "Um, you never signed a contract!" "Um, I'm didn't just coach you for free, we had an agreement on principle!" "We also principally agreed that you'd win more!" :D


You parties leader said “I want Obama to fail”.

Is Rush Limbaugh the Republican Party leader now, or did someone that has actually been elected to office say that.

[ictsooner7]

Sorry, but those are the facts. You continue to remain persistently ill informed of facts, blinded by your allegiance to all things Democratic.

Like a good automaton, you continue to play the roll of political minion to the letter.

Here are the facts.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/13/news/la-pn-house-passes-payroll-tax-bill-20111213

Please try to focus on the conversation.

Nobody is talking about the house bill.............this is all about the senate bill. The fact is that the house was TOLD by everyone the senate and the president their bill was dead on arrival, voting on it was political theater. Of course you are taking republican talking points and misstating them as facts. The SENATE had an agreement with the president and the house leadership that if this bill was passed in the senate the house would pass it and the president would sign it.

Even the Wall Street Journal agrees that this is a HUGE MASSIVE screw up by the teabaggers in the house. Good luck to the republicans to try to explain to the American people why tax cuts for the top 1% are fought to the death for, but tax cuts for middle class working folks are tossed overboard like garbage.


To bring Republicans to the table, Democrats have slow-walked an unrelated year-end spending bill that is needed to keep the government running, preventing the GOP-led House from finishing its work and leaving town for the holidays.

Thank you for making my point for me. The house republicans never intended to vote on the senate package, so why would boner think he could pass it? Why didn't he tell the senate he couldn't? INCOMPETENT LEADERSHIP. Did the spending bill get done? YES!!! So, the republicans got outmaneuvered by the dems. Elect smarter people and this won't keep happening to you.

[Sooner5030]

it'd be nice to have a thread just like this minus the folks that use the words: Obummer, Boner, Teabagger, Beck, Limbaugh.

Usually the thread goes down hill once these words get included.

Other than that I'm not bent out of shape about the tax cut extension either way. If it fails so be it. We have a revenue problem as it is.

[ictsooner7]

Is Rush Limbaugh the Republican Party leader now, or did someone that has actually been elected to office say that.


druggie told the repubs to use every parliamentarian trick at their disposal and they did. That is following your leader. Show me ONE republican who has stood up to him and his ignorant comments. ONE, how many apologies have pubs issued to him? I cannot even count the backsliding your people do to him. As for votes, your finally catching on, druggie has never received a single vote, why did he demand that since the republican got 46% of the vote that HE should be allowed to spend 46% of the stimulus money? Sounds like your parties leader to me.

[dwarthog]

Please try to focus on the conversation.

Nobody is talking about the house bill.............this is all about the senate bill. The fact is that the house was TOLD by everyone the senate and the president their bill was dead on arrival, voting on it was political theater. Of course you are taking republican talking points and misstating them as facts. The SENATE had an agreement with the president and the house leadership that if this bill was passed in the senate the house would pass it and the president would sign it.

Even the Wall Street Journal agrees that this is a HUGE MASSIVE screw up by the teabaggers in the house. Good luck to the republicans to try to explain to the American people why tax cuts for the top 1% are fought to the death for, but tax cuts for middle class working folks are tossed overboard like garbage.
.

Please pay attention to the original premise of this thread.

There was a handshake agreement in place prior to the bill ever going over to the Senate, that is why it was even sent over in the first place, which was conveniently cast aside in favor of seeking political gain by creating turmoil and attempting to leverage the news cycle to gain popular support.

It would be a lot more useful to this process if folks would take a bit more of an analytical look at this stuff instead of just being led around by the nose.

[okie52]

Now lets talk about this. Typical of the right to totally make stuff up.

This is from junior college dropout glenn crybaby beck. Lets get some basic facts straight, first it was $2 billion not $10 billion, funny how the number climbs to make it look worse. Second, this was done by Export-Import bank of the United States, there is no presidential authorization. It was approved by a five member board on April 14, 2009, ALL OF WHOM WERE APPOINTED BY………………..WAIT FOR IT…………….WAIT FOR IT…………………GEORGE W. BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! President Obama does not appove any loans from the bank, Brazil was going to drill anyway and the loan was to try to influence them to buy American drilling equipment.

It’s called Google, I‘m sure you’ve heard of it. Use it and look up the truth before you go posting some crap lies beck or limbagh tells you, then you go make yourself look foolish by regurgitating them as facts. Feel free to use the link below to the TRUTH!!!!!


http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/braziloil.asp

The actual LOAN was approved by Obama appointees. They had the power to reject it. The preliminary loan was approved by Bush appointees. But it is easy to see that the irony/hypocrisy of Obama's actions are lost on you. W removed the executive order against offshore drilling in the US... Obama reinstated it and has stood in the way of oil and gas exploration ever since he took office. Now try to understand that the President and/or his policies control what his appointees do while they are board members as seen by their actions with India on coal plants. The loan to Brazil wasn't a bad loan on its own merits. The loan coming from an administration that bans offshore drilling in the US is what makes it so hypocritical.

[ictsooner7]

The actual LOAN was approved by Obama appointees. They had the power to reject it. The preliminary loan was approved by Bush appointees. But it is easy to see that the irony/hypocrisy of Obama's actions are lost on you. W removed the executive order against offshore drilling in the US... Obama reinstated it and has stood in the way of oil and gas exploration ever since he took office. Now try to understand that the President and/or his policies control what his appointees do while they are board members as seen by their actions with India on coal plants. The loan to Brazil wasn't a bad loan on its own merits. The loan coming from an administration that bans offshore drilling in the US is what makes it so hypocritical.



Once again..............you are just making things up. I am so sick and tired of people on the right who just makes stuff up. GOOGLE!! it takes seconds to find out the truth, there is NO LOAN to approve to begin with! Only $308 MILLION was loaned by a PRIVATE BANK with guarantees from the bank that was approved by APPOINTEES BY GEORGE W. BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You just make yourself look silly constantly repeating lies told by glenn beck there is nothing here. ALL moneys loaned or guaranteed to outside of America by the Export-Import Bank HAVE to be used for AMERICAN GOODS AND SERVICES. This is something else the Bush did and you are trying your best to blame Obama, just like TARP. Really people, learn………..it’s not too tough.




George Allen says U.S. lent $2 billion to Brazil for oil and gas exploration

The Republican has repeatedly reminded voters that the U.S. has the largest fossil fuel reserves in the world and faulted President Barack Obama for not aggressively developing them.

Allen brought up the issue again in a Dec. 7 debate against Democrat Tim Kaine, who is also pursuing the U.S. Senate seat in 2012 that will be vacated by Jim Webb, D-Va. Allen voiced frustration with the Obama administration’s refusal to allow oil and natural gas leases off Virginia’s coast.

"Our federal government has lent $2 billion to the state-owned oil company of Brazil to allow them to explore for oil and gas, and that shows how contradictory our energy policies are," Allen said.

Is the U.S. really financing $2 billion worth of off-shore energy production in Brazil?

To back the claim, the Allen campaign emailed postings from several websites, including Forbes Magazine. Our research, however, shows that some of the information in the articles was loosely interpreted by Allen, and some of the information was inaccurate.

All of the articles center on a tentative offer by the Export-Import Bank of the United States in April 2009 to provide up to $2 billion in financing to Petrobras, Brazil’s national oil company.

The Export-Import Bank is an independent federal agency that provides financing options -- including direct loans, guarantees of loans and export-credit insurance -- to foreign buyers to help them purchase U.S. goods and services.

The bank, as noted in a September story by PolitiFact’s national staff, receives its spending authority from Congress but gets no appropriated funds. It operates using revenues from the fees and interest that it charges lenders and borrowers, although its transactions are ultimately backed by the U.S. government’s faith and credit. The bank is allowed to have up to $100 billion in outstanding loans.

We called Ex-Im Bank’s spokesman, Phil Cogan, and asked him to assess Allen’s statement.

"It is not correct," he said.

Ex-Im’s tentative agreement was an "expression of the bank’s willingness" to consider up to $2 billion in loan applications from Petrobras to finance its purchase of U.S. goods and supplies. All five of the bank’s board of directors who approved the decision were appointed by former President George W. Bush, a Republican.

On Feb. 4, 2010, the Ex-Im Bank agreed to guarantee a $308 million private loan to Petrobras made by JPMorgan Chase. The loan guarantee is helping Petrobras purchase goods and services from about 150 U.S. companies, according to Cogan.

There were no other financial transactions between Ex-Im and Petrobras before their preliminary loan agreement expired in April 2011. Cogan said it has not been renewed.

So Ex-Im did not directly lend any money to Petrobras, let alone the $2 billion Allen claimed. All it did was back a $308 million loan that a private bank made to the Brazilian oil company.Dan Allen, a senior adviser to the Allen campaign, told us George Allen should not be faulted for making a mistake about Ex-Im and Petrobras. He said George Allen based his statement on information published by credible news sources.

"We just didn’t come up with the stuff and throw it against the wall," Dan Allen said. "We relied on something published on Forbes magazine’s website."

He referred us to a May 2011 posting headlined "Petrobras to Tap Ex-Im Loan `Soon.’" The Forbes article, however, appears to be referring to the closing of JPMorgan Chase’s loan to Petrobras that Ex-Im guaranteed.

Dan Allen also sent us an article that ran this August in The Hill, a publication that covers Congress. That story, however, never said a $2 billion loan had been made. It merely noted that "Republicans railed against a 2009 proposed $2 billion commitment from the U.S. Import-Export Bank to the Brazilian oil company Petrobras."

Different claims about about the loan have been circulated over the last two years by conservative voices such as The Wall Street Journal editorial page, Fox News and Gov. Rick Perry, R-Texas.

Seeking to counter misinformation, Ex-Im has posted a website fact sheet about its relationship with Petrobras. The bank takes exception to statements by Allen and others that the dealings reflect inconsistent federal policies on off-shore drilling.

"There is no connection between the federal policies on offshore drilling in U.S. waters and financing U.S. export sales by other countries," the fact sheet says. "In fact, should Ex-Im Bank refuse to finance sales by U.S. companies it is likely that the sales will go instead to their foreign competitors."

Our conclusion:

Allen says the U.S. government lent $2 billion to Petrobras, the state-owned oil company of Brazil.

He is referring to a preliminary agreement by the U.S. Export-Import Bank, an independent federal agency, to consider offering up to $2 billion in financing to help Petrobras buy American goods and services.

In 2010, Ex-Im agreed to guarantee a $308 million private loan made to Petrobras by JPMorgan Chase. There were no other transactions, and Ex-Im’s agreement with Petrobras expired this April.

The bottom line is that that Ex-Im did not directly lend any money to Petrobras. We rate Allen’s statement False.

[badger]

druggie told the repubs to use every parliamentarian trick at their disposal and they did. That is following your leader. Show me ONE republican who has stood up to him and his ignorant comments. ONE, how many apologies have pubs issued to him? I cannot even count the backsliding your people do to him. As for votes, your finally catching on, druggie has never received a single vote, why did he demand that since the republican got 46% of the vote that HE should be allowed to spend 46% of the stimulus money? Sounds like your parties leader to me.

Like any other talking head, I fully expect him to say stuff to improve his ratings. I don't take what he says at face value, much like I roll my eyes when the local sports hack calls something the "worst ever."

As such, I don't expect many Republicans to bring up his name when making points.


Other than that I'm not bent out of shape about the tax cut extension either way. If it fails so be it. We have a revenue problem as it is.

If it happens, it happens. There's every indication that they're missing the Jan. 1 deadline and stuff expires.


Thank you for making my point for me. The house republicans never intended to vote on the senate package, so why would boner think he could pass it? Why didn't he tell the senate he couldn't? INCOMPETENT LEADERSHIP. Did the spending bill get done? YES!!! So, the republicans got outmaneuvered by the dems. Elect smarter people and this won't keep happening to you.

Incompetent leadership... sounds like the entire lot of them the past two years, perhaps the last four. The voters ask for jobs, the leaders give them Obamacare. The voters ask for jobs again, the leaders blame each other for inaction. The voters give up on asking for jobs, and the leaders point to declining unemployment rates and don't pass payroll taxes and unemployment benefit extensions. Derp.

[okie52]

Wanting America to fail and doing everything to ensure it is treason. You parties leader said “I want Obama to fail”. The note HW Bush left for Clinton said, good luck and I hope you succeed, because if the president fails America fails. The thrice or four time married hillybilly heroin addict traitor told his party use every parliamentarian tactic you can use to thwart anything the dems want to do. Like good little children the republicans did as rush told them. As for off shore drilling…………..the oil companies have ¾ of the off shore leases they own untouched. Why didn’t bush let them drill in his long eight years with six of them having huge majorities to push it through? Why, because most of the leases your complaining about the locals don’t want it to be drilled because of effect on tourism, which is their primary business. B!tch McConnell said it out loud, our number one legislative priority is to make sure the PRESIDENT is a one term president. Making sure the country doesn’t fail isn’t number one? Getting people back to work isn’t number one? TREASON.

Who cares what Limbaugh says? Is he an elected official or does he even hold an office? And making W a 1 term president wasn't the goal of Pelosi or Reid...you need to take off the blinders.

Your knowledge of offshore drilling should embarrass yourself. Try not to quote the talking point idiots that throw out garbage for people like you to regurgitate.

The undeveloped "leases" are in the Gulf Coast...not the Atlantic or Pacific. Oil companies will develop leases as they are prioritized on the basis of potential profit and production. Many of the leases that are untouched are either "held by production" and therefore not requiring immediate action or being developed. Or, they may not be viable at this time to drill. The leases have been bought and paid for by the oil companies and, if they are not held by production, they will expire according to the terms of the lease. Assuming the dept of interior can construct a decent lease, royalties from producing wells are going to the government as well as the original bonus consideration in purchasing the leases (which are usually done on an open bid sale).

Now about W and your lack of historical knowledge regarding offshore drilling. There were 2 bans on offshore drilling in the Atlantic and the Pacific. ONe was congressional and the other was executive. The congressional ban was allowed to expire in 2008 by the dem controlled congress because of the nation's uproar demanding offshore drilling. W, now armed with the removal of the congressional ban, removed the executive ban in 2008. Obama has banned offshore drilling on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts (although for a while he was looking at drilling in the Atlantic but then killed it in december of 2010).

The Gulf Coast has thousands of offshore wells and its tourism seems to be doing just fine and they have been drilling in the Gulf for 50 years. And tourism isn't the number 1 industry in the gulf coast...over half of all of the income made in the gulf is from oil and gas. The same could be potentially true for the ATlantic and Pacific coasts if exploration hadn't been denied for the last 40 years.

Now when you talk about traitorous energy policies one needs look no further than the cap and trade policy passed by the house in June of 2009. This bill punished coal, oil and NG while rewarding ethanol. There also was absolutely nothing that conditioned this bill on the actions of China or India so that the US would have been placed in a severe hardship economically and on an energy basis. This was Obama's bill and he had a chance to include nukes as a clean energy source (they produce almost no CO2) but, not only did he leave nukes out, he also shut down Yucca as a repository. Chu has still never given an explanation for Yucca's shutdown even though the site had been approved by 4 administrations and numerous congresses to be our waste repository (and, ironically, Chu supported Yucca just months before taking over as secretary of energy). So this was a payoff to Harry Reid.

And, to reiterate, energy independence is the stated goal of Obama but what has he done to achieve that goal? He has hamstrung the oil and gas industries on exploration, has done very little to switch/encourage NG car development or move our country to utilize its vast NG reserves. He still supports corn ethanol and mandates its inclusion in our fuel supply.

The oil and gas industry has done a wonderful job to develop America's resources IN SPITE OF OBAMA'S OPPOSITION. As I stated earlier, thousands of jobs, tax revenues and royalties are to be made from offshore development and Obama has chosen to ignore them even when the nation is hard pressed to employ people and meet its deficits. He could also reduce the US trade deficit significantly should we become energy independent (by over 50%). Only 1 man stands in the way and it is Obama. Now who is the traitor?

[okie52]

ictsooner7-

It appears you are right and I am wrong regarding the EXIM loan. I either have a bad memory or a bad source. Kudos to you.

[badger]

The oil and gas industry has done a wonderful job to develop America's resources IN SPITE OF OBAMA'S OPPOSITION. As I stated earlier, thousands of jobs, tax revenues and royalties are to be made from offshore development and Obama has chosen to ignore them even when the nation is hard pressed to employ people and meet its deficits. He could also reduce the US trade deficit significantly should we become energy independent (by over 50%). Only 1 man stands in the way and it is Obama. Now who is the traitor?

Slow down man... I have given this a bit of thought and I have think that there is one thing that is seriously holding Obama back on oil-related decisions, and it isn't the environmentalists lobby.

Remember how the gulf oil spill was referred to by some as "Obama's Katrina?" A natural disaster that completely devastated the area that impacted so many people's livelihoods, not to mention the non-human inhabitants of the area.

I wonder if Obama is having nightmares of something similar happening across the midwest where the pipeline would go if there were a spill or an explosion, or who knows what related to the pipeline... if not for his concern for the well-being of Americans and the environment, then concern for the backlash that would accompany such a disaster: "Didn't Obama learn ANYthing from the Gulf Coast?! How could he allow such a thing to happen to America twice during his presidency?!"

Speaking of, NP and I were watching a bowl game or a basketball game or some type of game... and this ad has the best punchline in the world:

jep5B9YBV-0

As you can imagine, we're just kind of like "bawww, they're trying to promote tourism" and then... you see who the ad is sponsored by and you can't stop laughing.

[okie52]

Wanting America to fail and doing everything to ensure it is treason. You parties leader said “I want Obama to fail”. The note HW Bush left for Clinton said, good luck and I hope you succeed, because if the president fails America fails. The thrice or four time married hillybilly heroin addict traitor told his party use every parliamentarian tactic you can use to thwart anything the dems want to do. Like good little children the republicans did as rush told them. As for off shore drilling…………..the oil companies have ¾ of the off shore leases they own untouched. Why didn’t bush let them drill in his long eight years with six of them having huge majorities to push it through? Why, because most of the leases your complaining about the locals don’t want it to be drilled because of effect on tourism, which is their primary business. B!tch McConnell said it out loud, our number one legislative priority is to make sure the PRESIDENT is a one term president. Making sure the country doesn’t fail isn’t number one? Getting people back to work isn’t number one? TREASON.


Still didn't answer the question:


And what is so bad about the tax cuts expiring and they return to the those sacred days of the Clinton tax rates? Well, of course, that would mean everyone's taxes would be raised but surely you must see that as a good thing...you know, that shared sacrifice the big O always talks about. The OMB even went so far as to say that having those tax rates would put $3,900,000,000,000 in the treasury over the next 10 years....$700,000,000,000 from the rich and $3,200,000,000,000 from all of the other taxpayers.

[ictsooner7]

Still didn't answer the question:


And what is so bad about the tax cuts expiring and they return to the those sacred days of the Clinton tax rates? Well, of course, that would mean everyone's taxes would be raised but surely you must see that as a good thing...you know, that shared sacrifice the big O always talks about. The OMB even went so far as to say that having those tax rates would put $3,900,000,000,000 in the treasury over the next 10 years....$700,000,000,000 from the rich and $3,200,000,000,000 from all of the other taxpayers.

First..........where did you get your numbers? I would like to see them.

Second......what is being talked about by Obama and the democrats is letting the tax rates for the highest tax brackets go back leaving the rest alone.

[pphilfran]

The only reason that the payroll tax reduction is even in the works is because the original stimulus did not do the job...contrary to what we were promised...

I have no faith in either side...

The incumbents should probably start packing their bags because they are going to get their azz thrown out...

[ictsooner7]

Who cares what Limbaugh says? Is he an elected official or does he even hold an office? And making W a 1 term president wasn't the goal of Pelosi or Reid...you need to take off the blinders.

Your knowledge of offshore drilling should embarrass yourself. Try not to quote the talking point idiots that throw out garbage for people like you to regurgitate.

The undeveloped "leases" are in the Gulf Coast...not the Atlantic or Pacific. Oil companies will develop leases as they are prioritized on the basis of potential profit and production. Many of the leases that are untouched are either "held by production" and therefore not requiring immediate action or being developed. Or, they may not be viable at this time to drill. The leases have been bought and paid for by the oil companies and, if they are not held by production, they will expire according to the terms of the lease. Assuming the dept of interior can construct a decent lease, royalties from producing wells are going to the government as well as the original bonus consideration in purchasing the leases (which are usually done on an open bid sale).

Now about W and your lack of historical knowledge regarding offshore drilling. There were 2 bans on offshore drilling in the Atlantic and the Pacific. ONe was congressional and the other was executive. The congressional ban was allowed to expire in 2008 by the dem controlled congress because of the nation's uproar demanding offshore drilling. W, now armed with the removal of the congressional ban, removed the executive ban in 2008. Obama has banned offshore drilling on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts (although for a while he was looking at drilling in the Atlantic but then killed it in december of 2010).

The Gulf Coast has thousands of offshore wells and its tourism seems to be doing just fine and they have been drilling in the Gulf for 50 years. And tourism isn't the number 1 industry in the gulf coast...over half of all of the income made in the gulf is from oil and gas. The same could be potentially true for the ATlantic and Pacific coasts if exploration hadn't been denied for the last 40 years.

Now when you talk about traitorous energy policies one needs look no further than the cap and trade policy passed by the house in June of 2009. This bill punished coal, oil and NG while rewarding ethanol. There also was absolutely nothing that conditioned this bill on the actions of China or India so that the US would have been placed in a severe hardship economically and on an energy basis. This was Obama's bill and he had a chance to include nukes as a clean energy source (they produce almost no CO2) but, not only did he leave nukes out, he also shut down Yucca as a repository. Chu has still never given an explanation for Yucca's shutdown even though the site had been approved by 4 administrations and numerous congresses to be our waste repository (and, ironically, Chu supported Yucca just months before taking over as secretary of energy). So this was a payoff to Harry Reid.

And, to reiterate, energy independence is the stated goal of Obama but what has he done to achieve that goal? He has hamstrung the oil and gas industries on exploration, has done very little to switch/encourage NG car development or move our country to utilize its vast NG reserves. He still supports corn ethanol and mandates its inclusion in our fuel supply.

The oil and gas industry has done a wonderful job to develop America's resources IN SPITE OF OBAMA'S OPPOSITION. As I stated earlier, thousands of jobs, tax revenues and royalties are to be made from offshore development and Obama has chosen to ignore them even when the nation is hard pressed to employ people and meet its deficits. He could also reduce the US trade deficit significantly should we become energy independent (by over 50%). Only 1 man stands in the way and it is Obama. Now who is the traitor?

You are the one embarrassing yourself..........who cares what rush says? Your whole party! Show me again anyone in your party that has stood up to him. How many republicans had to genuflex to rush when they dared cross him. My own former congressmen had to do it.

As for Pelosi or Reid wanting bush to be a one term president OF COURSE...........they just didn't make it their NUMBER ONE LEGISLATIVE PRIORITY. What did Reid block that bush wanted to do? Pelosi did have any power to do anything in the house, majority rules.

As for drilling off shore - you don't remember why he put the ban in? Nine dead, billions in damage, fishing and shrimping industries crippled, tourist season ruined for how many states? Tell me exactly what he has done.

So to correct you, he opened up more area for drilling then when the BP spill happened he shut it down.

some more facts........

Bush's energy policy was named "drill and veto" by U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The Drill Responsibly in Leased Lands (DRILL) Act (H.R. 6515) is one of the bills discussed in the Congress about drilling. In Florida, many counties, cities, chambers of commerce, and other local agencies have passed resolutions against oil drilling in Florida waters.

On March 31, 2010, President Obama announced that he was opening new areas in U.S. coastal waters to offshore drilling for gas and oil. This was in stark contrast to his reaction only a few weeks later to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that has become the largest offshore oil spill in United States history.

[okie52]

Slow down man... I have given this a bit of thought and I have think that there is one thing that is seriously holding Obama back on oil-related decisions, and it isn't the environmentalists lobby.

Remember how the gulf oil spill was referred to by some as "Obama's Katrina?" A natural disaster that completely devastated the area that impacted so many people's livelihoods, not to mention the non-human inhabitants of the area.

I wonder if Obama is having nightmares of something similar happening across the midwest where the pipeline would go if there were a spill or an explosion, or who knows what related to the pipeline... if not for his concern for the well-being of Americans and the environment, then concern for the backlash that would accompany such a disaster: "Didn't Obama learn ANYthing from the Gulf Coast?! How could he allow such a thing to happen to America twice during his presidency?!"

Speaking of, NP and I were watching a bowl game or a basketball game or some type of game... and this ad has the best punchline in the world:

jep5B9YBV-0

As you can imagine, we're just kind of like "bawww, they're trying to promote tourism" and then... you see who the ad is sponsored by and you can't stop laughing.

Lets just start with Obama's campaign in 2007-2008. He was against offshore drillling then as he was against nukes and coal. He was a big proponent of ethanol and that also helped him in the Iowa caucus. He stated goal was to bankrupt the coal industry and mandate movement from hydrocarbons to renewable energy sources through cap and trade. He passed the cap and trade in the house which punished NG and rewarded ethanol. He immediately reneged on oil and gas leases purchased in 2008 in Utah...not on protected lands but areas adjoining protected lands. http://www.fueloilnews.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=C44BAE70771342548DF3F8B2F22883E6&nm=&type=news&mod=News&mid=9A02E3B96F2A415ABC72CB5F516B4C10&tier=3&nid=152F04D9DF6647A79674C0496DAA4A46

What is the damage to the Gulf from the biggest spill ever? I'd say a much greater damage was done by the shutdown of drilling activity than the spill itself. Where are all of these decimated beaches? Are they fishing in the gulf now ? There have been thousands of wells drilled in the gulf in the last 50 years so the track record there is quite good.
I didn't mind a temporary shutdown but Obama was itching for an excuse to hamstring oil and gas exploration and BP gave him one.

You know, oil and gas companies usually support repubs so they are not usually looked on favorably by the dems.


Are people avoiding the gulf now?

[okie52]

You are the one embarrassing yourself..........who cares what rush says? Your whole party! Show me again anyone in your party that has stood up to him. How many republicans had to genuflex to rush when they dared cross him. My own former congressmen had to do it.

As for Pelosi or Reid wanting bush to be a one term president OF COURSE...........they just didn't make it their NUMBER ONE LEGISLATIVE PRIORITY. What did Reid block that bush wanted to do? Pelosi did have any power to do anything in the house, majority rules.

As for drilling off shore - you don't remember why he put the ban in? Nine dead, billions in damage, fishing and shrimping industries crippled, tourist season ruined for how many states? Tell me exactly what he has done.

So to correct you, he opened up more area for drilling then when the BP spill happened he shut it down.

some more facts........

Bush's energy policy was named "drill and veto" by U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The Drill Responsibly in Leased Lands (DRILL) Act (H.R. 6515) is one of the bills discussed in the Congress about drilling. In Florida, many counties, cities, chambers of commerce, and other local agencies have passed resolutions against oil drilling in Florida waters.

On March 31, 2010, President Obama announced that he was opening new areas in U.S. coastal waters to offshore drilling for gas and oil. This was in stark contrast to his reaction only a few weeks later to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that has become the largest offshore oil spill in United States history.

The house and senate were controlled by the dems since 2006. Pelosi was the speaker of a dem controlled house. Of course Pelosi is a supporter of NG since according to her "it will get us off of fossil fuels." More dem brilliance right there.

Obama was bowing to public pressure on the drilling in the Atlantic. Bp gave him the excuse he needed. See my statements above to Badger.

In december of 2010 Obama shut down both coasts again long after the bP spill had been contained. There are thousands of wells in the gulf. He was only looking for an excuse.

[okie52]

First..........where did you get your numbers? I would like to see them.

Second......what is being talked about by Obama and the democrats is letting the tax rates for the highest tax brackets go back leaving the rest alone.

So you have been screaming about tax cuts for the rich and you weren't aware about the expense of everyone else's tax cuts?

I'll get you number 1.

Number 2
No shared sacrifice? Just tax the rich and let everyone else off of the hook. Class warfare alright.

Edit:

here you go-some of these vary slightly but you should be able to get the picture:


Bush tax cuts: $544.3 billion. The package would extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone for two years.

The bulk of that cost -- $463 billion -- is for the extension of cuts for families making less than $250,000, including two years of relief for 2010 and 2011 for the middle class from the Alternative Minimum Tax.

The rest -- $81.5 billion -- is attributable to the extension of cuts that apply to the highest income families.

The cost of extending all the tax cuts over 10 years would have been $3.7 trillion.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/07/news/economy/tax_cut_deal_obama/index.htm

[badger]

Are people avoiding the gulf now?

Well... some are, some aren't :)

Mizzou and Aggie: S-E-C! S-E-C!
OU: Well, we kind of need to support our little challenged brother program so if you can't take them, we'll politely decline moving to your gulf coastal conference.
OSU: We're declining you too!
SEC: Sure you are.
OSU: We are also declining your invite to your gulf coast BCS championship game!
SEC: Heh... ok then...
Race to the Top: The closest we're coming is North Carolina to the gulf coast. Oklahoma, we're ignoring you too.
Oklahoma: Bawwwww

[badger]

Holy cow... did they actually come to an agreement?

Link (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=335&articleid=20111222_335_0_WASHIN588254)

Stay tuned...

[pphilfran]

Two f'n months...

Vote the entire bunch out of office...

[pphilfran]

Da poor babies wanted to get home for Christmas...

I have had to work many holidays due to disasters under my watch....

Yet the DC elite would rather half azz the project and put it off for a couple of months and then go through the whole f'n mess a second time...

[badger]

So I know I've been predicting that they wouldn't reach an agreement, but let's face it --- if I was good at predicting stuff, I wouldn't be stuck with an OSU sig, status, avatar and vBookie hell till the Insight Bowl. :stunned:

[soonercruiser]

Those are not the facts at all you are just making sh!t up. The republicans in the senate NEGOTIATED with the dems to come to an agreement with the house leadership agreeing to it and boner couldn't deliver the votes as PROMISED or 39 republican senators would not have voted for it!! What the hell did President OBAMA have to do with this teabagger screwup?

NOTHING!!!!!

Quit making shi!t up!!!!!!

From the Wall Street Jounal

Tuesday, the House rejected by a 229-193 vote a bill passed by the Senate that would have extended the payroll-tax break for two months while Congress tried to fashion a longer-term fix. The GOP-controlled House, upending a deal that appeared set just days earlier, also demanded that Senate leaders return to Washington and negotiate a longer extension of the tax break as well as expiring benefits for the long-term unemployed and Medicare payments to doctors.

Left out of the photo op: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the co-architect of the Senate’s two-month tax cut extension. He reached an agreement that has become a throbbing political headache for Boehner and has remained unusually silent as the partisan rancor and gridlock cause a year-end embarrassment for Congress. …
“This is a colossal fumble by the House Republicans,” said a senior Senate GOP aide, requesting anonymity to speak candidly about his own party. “Their inability to recognize a win is costing our party our long-held advantage on the key issue of tax relief. It’s time for Boehner and [House Majority Leader Eric] Cantor to look these rookies in the eye and explain how the game is won or lost.”

OK big mouth!
You are talking about the most recent deals.

The handshake deal that I saw the video on was originally for the next year!
You are one or two deals behind my original post!

But, you are correct in saying...."Obama was never involved".That jerk has not been involved in anything that would benefit the country.
He isn't involved in anything except fund raising and running for President ahead of time!
* Not making the tax extension for a whole year so the financial community and businesses could plan taxes ahead of time!
* Not involved in leading or working through the Keystone XL pipeline deal so that tens of thousands of jobs could be creted!
* Not involved in opening energy independance!
Not involved in anything except trying to destroy our economy and small businesses!
That is his plan! He is the traitor to the country!

[soonercruiser]

Two f'n months...

Vote the entire bunch out of office...

Boehner CAVES!!!!

There will soon be another majority leader for the House!

[ictsooner7]

So you have been screaming about tax cuts for the rich and you weren't aware about the expense of everyone else's tax cuts?

I'll get you number 1.

Number 2
No shared sacrifice? Just tax the rich and let everyone else off of the hook. Class warfare alright.

Edit:

here you go-some of these vary slightly but you should be able to get the picture:

Bush tax cuts: $544.3 billion. The package would extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone for two years.

The bulk of that cost -- $463 billion -- is for the extension of cuts for families making less than $250,000, including two years of relief for 2010 and 2011 for the middle class from the Alternative Minimum Tax.

The rest -- $81.5 billion -- is attributable to the extension of cuts that apply to the highest income families.

The cost of extending all the tax cuts over 10 years would have been $3.7 trillion

http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/07/news/economy/tax_cut_deal_obama/index.htm

OK, first those number include Alternative Minimum Tax which has nothing to do with the bush tax cuts, and a vast majority of those hit the middle class. Second those numbers just don’t add up. Doesn’t your party claim that the top 1% pay 38% or so percent? 544/463 is 17.49% for everyone over 250,000 that just doesn’t add up.

Over the past 30 years, middle-class wages have stagnated despite robust productivity growth, while the wealthiest sliver of the population has captured greater shares of income growth and national wealth. Tax policy should be designed to promote economic fairness by pushing against the trend of ever-widening income inequality. Instead, the Bush-era (2001–08) tax changes actually increased inequality by delivering more than half of their benefits in 2010 to the top 10 percent of earners, who make over $170,000 a year. In fact, 38 percent of the dollar benefits went to the top 1 percent of earners (tax filers making over $645,000), who received tax breaks averaging over $100,000.Working families, however, got the scraps. The bottom 60 percent of earners (making under $70,000 a year) received less than 20 percent of the benefits of these tax changes in 2010. And the tax cuts for the wealthy never trickled down to middle-class families: Inflation-adjusted median weekly earnings fell by 2.3 percent during the economic expansion from 2001Q4 to 2007Q4. While real wages fell for most Americans, the top 1 percent of earners captured a whopping 65 percent of all income gains, leaving just 13 percent for the bottom 90 percent.

[soonercruiser]

And again, there are left wing talking points....and facts!


As for Pelosi or Reid wanting bush to be a one term president OF COURSE...........they just didn't make it their NUMBER ONE LEGISLATIVE PRIORITY. What did Reid block that bush wanted to do? Pelosi did have any power to do anything in the house, majority rules.

Peeloski and Reid (in concert with Obama) had total control of the legislative process for 2 years!
What did they do??? They did their best to make America a broken, third-rate socialist country!
How much has the national debt increased under Obama?
Peeloski had a point! You have to pass our legislation to see what's in it!
How's the healthcare costs doing?


As for drilling off shore - you don't remember why he put the ban in? Nine dead, billions in damage, fishing and shrimping industries crippled, tourist season ruined for how many states? Tell me exactly what he has done.

So to correct you, he opened up more area for drilling then when the BP spill happened he shut it down.

On March 31, 2010, President Obama announced that he was opening new areas in U.S. coastal waters to offshore drilling for gas and oil. This was in stark contrast to his reaction only a few weeks later to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that has become the largest offshore oil spill in United States history.

Maybe Okie or one of the energy experts can provide you some real facts on the larger potential areas of exploration that were closed by Obama.
And, I believe that the Gulf area's potential far outweighs the small areas opened in the east - where even the states themselves may not allow drilling in spite of "open season".

Obama is even willing to jeopardize the pipeline from Canada and tens of thousands of jobs too - in the words of the Canadians and TransCanada themselves....would simply build a pipeline to thier west coast and sell more oil to China if their is a big delay!
DUH!
Obama is an idiot! Any person with half a brain would know that you can start building the portions of the pipeline not in question on environmental issues.
And, don't give us the LW crap that Obama doesn't control that! Just like he an Holder didn't have any say in dropping the slam-dunk voter intimidation case against the New Black Panthers in Philly!

March 2010


Obama To Open Up Some East Coast Drilling; New England Flooding Continues
...from NPR!!!!...no less....
— The Associated Press — "Obama To Allow Oil Drilling Off Virginia Coast": "In a reversal of a long-standing ban on most offshore drilling, President Barack Obama is allowing oil drilling 50 miles off Virginia's shorelines. At the same time, he is rejecting some new drilling sites that had been planned in Alaska. Obama's plan offers few concessions to environmentalists, who have been strident in their opposition to more oil platforms off the nation's shores. Hinted at for months, the plan modifies a ban that for more than 20 years has limited drilling along coastal areas other than the Gulf of Mexico."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/03/drilling_obama_vatican_mortgag.html

December 2010


Obama restores East Coast drilling ban, cites BP
AGENCIES Dec 2, 2010, 10.48am ISTWASHINGTON: BP's oil well in the Gulf of Mexico is dead; the political fallout is very much alive. The Obama administration says it will not open new areas of the Atlantic seaboard and eastern Gulf to drilling, reversing a decision to hunt for oil and gas that the president himself announced three weeks before the largest offshore oil spill in US history.Interior Secretary Ken Salazar acknowledged Wednesday: ``We are adjusting our strategy.'' Salazar said the BP spill taught officials a number of lessons, ``most importantly that we need to proceed with caution.''
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2010-12-02/news/28439323_1_bp-spill-oil-and-gas-drilling


Obama: No offshore drilling in East Coast waters The decision is a reversal from what the administration proposed in March
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40455797/ns/us_news-environment/t/obama-no-offshore-drilling-east-coast-waters/

Under the revised plan, the Interior Department will not propose any new oil drilling in waters in the Atlantic Ocean and eastern Gulf for at least the next seven years. Already-planned lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico, expected in March and August, will be delayed until late 2011 or early 2012, Salazar said.
The administration's previous plan — announced last March, three weeks before the April BP spill — would have authorized officials to explore the potential for drilling from Delaware to central Florida, plus the northern waters of Alaska. The new plan allows potential drilling in Alaska, but officials said they will move cautiously before approving any leases.

Lawmakers in Florida praised Wednesday's decision. Drilling in state-controlled waters has long been banned because of fears that a major spill would damage state beaches.

[soonercruiser]

And..... more up to date.....



Va. governor pushes anew for offshore drilling
By STEVE SZKOTAK

May 5, 2011 – Then the Deepwater Horizon accident occurred and the Obama administration shelved plans to open East Coast waters to drilling. ...
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9N1H49G0.htm

Anddd.....bringing you more up to date....


Obama to expand drilling off Alaska, in Gulf , not Va.The Associated Press
© November 8, 2011
By Dina Cappiello and Steve Szkotak
WASHINGTON
The Obama administration cautiously offered up more areas in the Gulf of Mexico and off Alaska's coast to oil and gas drilling Tuesday, but didn't go far enough to satisfy Republicans pushing to greatly expand drilling as a way to create jobs and wean the country off foreign oil.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar unveiled a proposal to hold 15 lease sales for areas in the Gulf of Mexico, including two in the eastern Gulf, and three off Alaska's coast in the time frame from 2012 to 2017. The sales off Alaska, where native groups and environmentalists have objected to drilling, would be the first since 2008. They would be held late in the five-year time frame to allow for scientific evaluations in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, which Interior officials called a "frontier" for drilling. And they would be targeted to avoid areas with cultural and environmental sensitivities, officials said.

"The approach we are taking there is a cautious one," Deputy Interior Secretary David Hayes said of the Arctic leases. "We are aware of the substantial issues associated with major production."

In the western and central Gulf, by contrast, the proposal puts all unleased acreage up for sale. There, drilling is more commonplace, infrastructure is well developed, and spill response plans have improved since the Gulf oil spill disaster in 2010.

U.S. Sens. Jim Webb and Mark Warner each said they are hopeful the administration will reconsider the offshore plan it released Tuesday and include Virginia. The Virginia Democrats said opening offshore waters to oil and gas exploration would boost domestic energy production and benefit the state's economy.

Virginia was on the brink of being included in offshore oil and gas exploration until the Gulf oil disaster pushed back any plans to open East Coast waters to drilling.

Gov. Bob McDonnell has pushed hard to open waters off Virginia to exploration. He cast the decision as undermining the state's ambitious energy policy and job development, and he sharply criticized the Obama administration. He urged Congress to pass the legislation introduced by Webb and Warner.

"Today's decision will prevent the creation of thousands of new jobs for our citizens," McDonnell said in a statement. He has made offshore oil and gas exploration a key component of his quest to make Virginia the East Coast's energy leader.
He called the decision "another glaring example of the abysmal failure of the Obama administration to develop a comprehensive national energy policy."

The drilling plans are the latest iteration of President Barack Obama's strategy for energy production, which has continually shifted to account for political realities, high gasoline prices and environmental disasters such as last year's Gulf oil spill. Weeks before that disaster, the White House had talked of expanding offshore drilling off Alaska, in the Atlantic and throughout the eastern Gulf, in part to help move stalled climate-change legislation through Congress. It pulled back late last year after the blowout of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig.

In May, with Republicans in Congress passing bills to speed up and expand offshore drilling and with the public outraged over high gasoline prices, Obama directed his administration to extend existing leases and to hold more frequent sales in the federal petroleum reserve in Alaska to boost oil production.

Tuesday's proposal goes slightly further by putting parts of the Cook Inlet, Chukchi and Beaufort seas back up for sale. President George W. Bush had opened up those areas for drilling in 2008, as part of a proposal that included drilling off the West and East coasts, and in the eastern Gulf.

Obama scrapped drilling off Virginia in early 2010, barred drilling in Alaska's Bristol Bay and never considered drilling off the Pacific coast, where opposition is widespread.

Virginia had been banking on a lease sale of offshore tracts by 2012, but planned East Coast exploration was delayed at least until 2017 after the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster.

The current exploration area about 50 miles off Virginia's coast encompasses 2.9 million acres. The government estimates the area can produce 130 million barrels of oil and 1.1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Seismic studies haven't been conducted in those waters off Virginia in decades and industry estimates forecast much higher gas and oil reserves than previously thought, based on new exploration technology.

Environmentalists are skeptical, and contend offshore drilling is an environmental risk. They argue that estimates of oil and gas potential off Virginia represent a just sip compared to the nation's big thirst for energy, and made the case for developing offshore wind.

"We recognize that some want drilling here in large part because of the jobs it would bring, but developing Virginia's significant offshore wind resources would also create jobs and generate revenue..." said Deborah Murray, senior staff attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center.

Besides the Gulf and the Alaska leases, the proposal includes a sliver in the eastern Gulf about 150 miles off the Florida coast. The rest of the eastern Gulf is off limits due to a congressional moratorium.

Environmentalists expressed dismay at the decision to proceed with drilling in the Arctic.

The announcement came on a day when a near-record storm was expected to pound the western Alaska coast. The focus was in the Bering Sea, but the National Weather Service said winds of 65 to 70 mph with gusts to 90 mph also were expected along the Chukchi Sea coast.

"How do you drill a relief well? How do you put a containment system in place in those conditions? It is a very challenging situation up there to say the least," said Marilyn Heiman, the Arctic Program Director for the Pew Environment Group.

William H. Meadow, the president of The Wilderness Society, said in a statement the lease sale plan "continues to take America down the road of putting big oil first, threatening our few remaining pristine areas with drilling and spilling."

"It is too soon for the administration to say that they will have the necessary science, the proven spill-response techniques, and the needed response capacity and onshore infrastructure by the time of their proposed Arctic Ocean lease sales," he said.

The American Petroleum Institute, an oil industry trade group, was also not pleased. Erik Milito, head of the group's production section, called it "a missed opportunity" to address rising energy demand, jobs and the deficit. Royalties from energy production on public lands are one of the largest sources of income to the federal government.

The plan falls well short of proposals passed in the House and touted by Republicans running for president, who want to vastly expand drilling. They have accused the president of stifling American energy.

Still, from 2008 to 2010, oil production offshore increased from 446 million barrels to 600 million barrels.

"No new drilling or new lease sales will occur during President Obama's term in office," predicted Washington Republican Rep. Doc Hastings, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. Hastings, who sponsored three measures that passed the House earlier this year to speed up drilling and open up areas along the East and West coast, Alaska and eastern Gulf to drilling.

"The Obama administration's draft plan places some of the most promising energy resources in the world off-limits," said Hastings.

Lawmakers from Alaska, who have pushed to tap its energy resources, hailed the plan as a positive step Tuesday.

But Sen. Lisa Murkowski, the top Republican on the Senate energy panel, and other Alaskan lawmakers, said the permitting process would ultimately determine the success of the lease sales.

Shell Oil Co. paid the federal government $2.1 billion for petroleum leases in the Chukchi Sea off Alaska's northwest shore in 2008, the last time federal waters in Alaska were auctioned off. But nearly four years later, the oil giant has yet to drill an exploratory well because of lawsuits brought by environmental groups and delays in its air pollution permit.

The company hopes to start drilling in 2012.
http://hamptonroads.com/2011/11/obama-expand-drilling-alaska-gulf-not-va



Sooooo ict, THE FACTS ARE that Obama has not done anything yet for expanding drilling opportunities.
yES, There is a NEW "plan".......just like there was in March 2010......
BUT NOTHING IS YET HAPPENING, OR PREDICTED TO SOON BE HAPPENING ON OPENING UP OFFSHORE DRILLING FOR OIL AND GAS!

[hawaii 5-0]

So I know I've been predicting that they wouldn't reach an agreement, but let's face it --- if I was good at predicting stuff, I wouldn't be stuck with an OSU sig, status, avatar and vBookie hell till the Insight Bowl. :stunned:


It just goes to show you're a woman of your Word.

Good jorb.

5-0

[badger]

Hehe i am an honest badger. :)

Now... will you be an honest 5-0 and vote for trump if he appears on anyone's ticket? I think you have to since you signed your posts with that for a long time :d

[ictsooner7]

And again, there are left wing talking points....and facts!



Peeloski and Reid (in concert with Obama) had total control of the legislative process for 2 years!What did they do??? They did their best to make America a broken, third-rate socialist country!
How much has the national debt increased under Obama?
Peeloski had a point! You have to pass our legislation to see what's in it!
How's the healthcare costs doing?



Maybe Okie or one of the energy experts can provide you some real facts on the larger potential areas of exploration that were closed by Obama.
And, I believe that the Gulf area's potential far outweighs the small areas opened in the east - where even the states themselves may not allow drilling in spite of "open season".

Obama is even willing to jeopardize the pipeline from Canada and tens of thousands of jobs too - in the words of the Canadians and TransCanada themselves....would simply build a pipeline to thier west coast and sell more oil to China if their is a big delay!
DUH!
Obama is an idiot! Any person with half a brain would know that you can start building the portions of the pipeline not in question on environmental issues.
And, don't give us the LW crap that Obama doesn't control that! Just like he an Holder didn't have any say in dropping the slam-dunk voter intimidation case against the New Black Panthers in Philly!

March 2010



December 2010


Total control for two years? Really? You don't remember your party keeping an elected official from the state of Minnesota from keeping office until July 7, 2009 and Ted Kennedy died on August 25, 2009. That is not two years. Try two months. I see your not worried about the $5.5 TRILLION in debt bush added or the $2 TRILLION both hw bush and ronnie added. When Obama took over the deficit was $1.2 TRILLION A YEAR! THANKS GEORGE. UNDER WHOSE WATCH DID THE ECONOMY COLASPE ON? BUSH!!!

Tens of thousands of jobs? Keep sucking the repub koolaid.

Obama produced more jobs in 2010 ALONE than bush did in EIGHT YEARS!!

[hawaii 5-0]

Hehe i am an honest badger. :)

Now... will you be an honest 5-0 and vote for trump if he appears on anyone's ticket? I think you have to since you signed your posts with that for a long time :d


I probably would. Not that Trump would win. It's just that Hawaii is very blue. There's an unconfirmed (by Trump) rumour that Obama is/isn't from Hawaii. My vote really won't count. Obama has it wrapped up in Hawaii. Usually by the time Hawaii polls close the winner is already announced.

5-0

[UTisLousy]

Thank goodness Obama stepped in and helped stop the tax holiday from expiring. Apparently I can't depend on the Republicans to do anything for me. The House Republicans seemed to be perfectly fine with allowing my taxes to increase in order to win some political points against Obama. This clearly proves to me that Republicans aren't looking out for my interest. These clowns aren't even trying to hide it anymore either!

The Republican leadership in the House and Senate are screwing over their party, and I'm glad to see they got their noses rubbed in it today.

[ictsooner7]

Thank goodness Obama stepped in and helped stop the tax holiday from expiring. Apparently I can't depend on the Republicans to do anything for me. The House Republicans seemed to be perfectly fine with allowing my taxes to increase in order to win some political points against Obama. This clearly proves to me that Republicans aren't looking out for my interest. These clowns aren't even trying to hide it anymore either!

The Republican leadership in the House and Senate are screwing over their party, and I'm glad to see they got their noses rubbed in it today.


Finally someone who gets it. Theses guys will fight to the death for tax cuts that benefit the wealthy and are not paid for, but just the second there is a tax cut the benefits working Americans they oppose it. The tide has turned and Obama now has firm leads over all republicans, the only thing that will save the house for them is the radical redistricting in Ohio and Pennsylvania. People are seeing what the tea party is all about, a radical redistribution of income to the weathly.

[OULenexaman]

It just amazes me how many people that are still out there that worship a been nothing done nothing other than change his name to a muslim name POS POTUS. And now they even want to re-elect his bum ***.

[okie52]

OK, first those number include Alternative Minimum Tax which has nothing to do with the bush tax cuts, and a vast majority of those hit the middle class. Second those numbers just don’t add up. Doesn’t your party claim that the top 1% pay 38% or so percent? 544/463 is 17.49% for everyone over 250,000 that just doesn’t add up.

Over the past 30 years, middle-class wages have stagnated despite robust productivity growth, while the wealthiest sliver of the population has captured greater shares of income growth and national wealth. Tax policy should be designed to promote economic fairness by pushing against the trend of ever-widening income inequality. Instead, the Bush-era (2001–08) tax changes actually increased inequality by delivering more than half of their benefits in 2010 to the top 10 percent of earners, who make over $170,000 a year. In fact, 38 percent of the dollar benefits went to the top 1 percent of earners (tax filers making over $645,000), who received tax breaks averaging over $100,000.Working families, however, got the scraps. The bottom 60 percent of earners (making under $70,000 a year) received less than 20 percent of the benefits of these tax changes in 2010. And the tax cuts for the wealthy never trickled down to middle-class families: Inflation-adjusted median weekly earnings fell by 2.3 percent during the economic expansion from 2001Q4 to 2007Q4. While real wages fell for most Americans, the top 1 percent of earners captured a whopping 65 percent of all income gains, leaving just 13 percent for the bottom 90 percent.

There are other number of revised estimates by the CBO that show the deficit even higher for the next ten years.

What do the bottom 50% pay in taxes? You actually have to pay taxes to receive a benefit from tax cuts.

Remember the conversation you seem to have forgotten? If the egregious Bush tax cuts expire then they go back to the utopian Clinton tax rates...you know, fair and balanced. Those rich that got those HUGE tax cuts will go back to the Clinton rates just like everyone else. What could be more fair? Yet you and the dems can only focus on the tax cuts for the rich and always forget that those cuts were for everyone and all of the projected added debt is 4 times higher for the tax cuts on everyone else than the rich.

So, again, why not let all taxes go back to the Clinton tax rates?

[badger]

I did appreciate the Bush era tax cuts for one reason --- I personally saw the impact.

I was a lowly paid college student in a seasonal job that was getting a big chunk of a small paycheck taken out for federal taxes before the Bush era cuts kicked in. The next summer, I saw a clear difference in take-home pay.

Yes, the rich get more cuts money-wise than us lowly minimum wagers, but at least us minimum wagers got something too. Thus, Bush was the first president I ever voted for (because I was 17 during the 2000 election and thus ineligible to vote), because I saw a tangible difference, something that you can't always say about the federal level of government. What have they done for me lately? I could finally find an answer.

It will be interesting to see how they will try to extend the cuts beyond the two months. Many votes, like mine in 2004, likely depend on seeing tangible differences like this.

[ictsooner7]

I did appreciate the Bush era tax cuts for one reason --- I personally saw the impact.

I was a lowly paid college student in a seasonal job that was getting a big chunk of a small paycheck taken out for federal taxes before the Bush era cuts kicked in. The next summer, I saw a clear difference in take-home pay.

Yes, the rich get more cuts money-wise than us lowly minimum wagers, but at least us minimum wagers got something too. Thus, Bush was the first president I ever voted for (because I was 17 during the 2000 election and thus ineligible to vote), because I saw a tangible difference, something that you can't always say about the federal level of government. What have they done for me lately? I could finally find an answer.

It will be interesting to see how they will try to extend the cuts beyond the two months. Many votes, like mine in 2004, likely depend on seeing tangible differences like this.

I't like to see the difference it made in your minimum wage job. Are you not concerned with how much it raised the deficit?

[badger]

I't like to see the difference it made in your minimum wage job. Are you not concerned with how much it raised the deficit?

I'm not saying that I'm the same person I was 10 years ago. I just used it as an example of how I can see why people are voting for things they personally see some sort of beneficial outcome in.

When you are dirt poor or chronically broke, you probably do not give a crap about the national deficit. "Trillion" is word from a world you live in, but not a world you operate in if you are living paycheck to paycheck.

Some might argue that the poors are not paying taxes. They totally are. That income tax refund does not provide immediate relief when you budgeting down to the dollar, perhaps the penny. That is the tangible difference that my minimum wagin' arse saw 10 years ago --- the one where my take-home pay was larger.

I think this is the same reason why Iowans are liking the ethanol investments they see, even if they're driving corn up to the unaffordable level for some farmers and average joes. Who gives a crap about them, I'm seeing a difference personally that's beneficial to my income. There's other examples out there, but I'm picking on Iowa since they are the stuck uppity folk that insist on being "first in the nation" for presidential voting crap. Cauc-***-es ;)

Of course I care about the deficit and want to pay my fair share, not be part of the problem, blah blah blah... today. There's tons of desperate and hopeless people out there that notice when they suddenly don't have that $40 in their paycheck... so eff the deficit, eff the fact that rich got a bigger cut and eff the elected officials that vote against it, because, they're saying "I want my tax cut."

Perspective. It helps when trying to comprehend things that don't personally impact you as much today.

[hawaii 5-0]

It just amazes me how many people that are still out there that worship a been nothing done nothing other than change his name to a muslim name POS POTUS. And now they even want to re-elect his bum ***.


Right now the alternatives look worse.

Maybe things will change. I remember something somewhere about hope and change. I forgot already, it was so long ago.

Personally I would vote Obama again simply because he got Oksanna and got us out of Iraq.

Sure I would love to see the economy turn around much faster, but my expecatations are more realistic than most.

5-0

[badger]

I may vote for Obama if I felt the Senate and House would be both Republican majorities. That was the major reason I voted for McCain, because it was obvious that the Senate and House were both going to be Democratic-led... and filibuster-proof.

But, like you 5-0, I'm voting in a state that's already pretty much declared its allegiance to either the red side or the blue side so my vote there probably doesn't really matter.

[hawaii 5-0]

Pretty much all I can do is find some wingnut and tell them my vote cancels their vote.

I don't follow any Party Line, never have. Give me a candidate and I'll compare him/her against the alternatives. Makes it pretty simple to me.

Ain't no political bumper sticker on my car.

5-0

[badger]

Pretty much all I can do is find some wingnut and tell them my vote cancels their vote.

Oh yes. It was always fun telling my college friends around me how much I voted for Bush in the 04 election. Didn't mean anything by it except for fun, so yeah.


I don't follow any Party Line, never have.

The Republican overlords told me that you would say that... shortly after they told me "eliminate the liberal demon."


Give me a candidate and I'll compare him/her against the alternatives.

Trump. You already said you'd vote for Trump.


Makes it pretty simple to me.

Yes it does, because you're voting for Trump.


Ain't no political bumper sticker on my car.

No, just "Trump" in your sig of your SF.com posts for months!


5-0
Merry Christmas, you liberal heathen bleeding heart socialist yellow dog system moochie who probably celebrates winter solstice ;)

[hawaii 5-0]

Same to you and yours, Badger.

Go Sooners ! Go Badgers !

5-0

[ictsooner7]

Oh yes. It was always fun telling my college friends around me how much I voted for Bush in the 04 election. Didn't mean anything by it except for fun, so yeah.



The Republican overlords told me that you would say that... shortly after they told me "eliminate the liberal demon."



Trump. You already said you'd vote for Trump.



Yes it does, because you're voting for Trump.



No, just "Trump" in your sig of your SF.com posts for months!


Merry Christmas, you liberal heathen bleeding heart socialist yellow dog system moochie who probably celebrates winter solstice ;)

So.........................just because we are liberals we are heathens, socialist yellow dog system moochers?



OK.........................you inbred, redneck, hillbilly system sucker. Most teabaggers are on medicare and social security.

and Merry Christmas to you.

[Turd_Ferguson]

So.........................just because we are liberals we are heathens, socialist yellow dog system moochers?



OK.........................you inbred, redneck, hillbilly system sucker. Most teabaggers are on medicare and social security.

and Merry Christmas to you.There has been a few top tier tools on the board over the years...you, my friend are well on your way to being ranked right up there with them...Godspeed

[ictsooner7]

There has been a few top tier tools on the board over the years...you, my friend are well on your way to being ranked right up there with them...Godspeed

Typical republican reply, we are called "you liberal heathen bleeding heart socialist yellow dog system moochie who probably celebrates winter solstice", and when I return fire I'm a tool?



Thank you for showing hypocrisy of wingnuts. You're just pissed off my insult was better than his insult.



BTW................a tool is someone who has a bit of power and uses it thinking it will advance themselves. If you are going to insult me, please do so with something that makes sense.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Typical republican reply, we are called "you liberal heathen bleeding heart socialist yellow dog system moochie who probably celebrates winter solstice", and when I return fire I'm a tool?



Thank you for showing hypocrisy of wingnuts. You're just pissed off my insult was better than his insult.



BTW................a tool is someone who has a bit of power and uses it thinking it will advance themselves. If you are going to insult me, please do so with something that makes sense.Bwaahahahhahahaha......Powerful TOOL

[hawaii 5-0]

Merry Christmas Turd.


5-0

[ictsooner7]

Bwaahahahhahahaha......Powerful TOOL

Refer to my above post.

[badger]

Typical republican reply, we are called "you liberal heathen bleeding heart socialist yellow dog system moochie who probably celebrates winter solstice", and when I return fire I'm a tool?

There was no "we" to it, dear, so there was no reason to return fire when the "fire" wasn't even directed at you.

;) <--- Protip: Smileys. they are used to show sarcasm, joking and other funness related to message boards.

[hawaii 5-0]

Lots of tools in the toolbox, huh?

5-0

[badger]

Just to be clear. After a year of mostly positive experience, in which I had decided to become an Elite Sponsor, I started the Hollis Board, I had a 46,000 spek rating based on real spek not betting over two season and 1500 posts, in the last four weeks I can see this board is a place I don't want to be or patronize. There are two other boards which I believe have at least equivalent football knowledge without the abusive environment. I am taking my business elsewhere.

John W. Helander
President & CEO
GrayBox Services Ltd. &
eState Auction House Ltd.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Merry Christmas Turd.


5-0Back atcha 5-0

[ictsooner7]

Just to be clear. After a year of mostly positive experience, in which I had decided to become an Elite Sponsor, I started the Hollis Board, I had a 46,000 spek rating based on real spek not betting over two season and 1500 posts, in the last four weeks I can see this board is a place I don't want to be or patronize. There are two other boards which I believe have at least equivalent football knowledge without the abusive environment. I am taking my business elsewhere.

John W. Helander
President & CEO
GrayBox Services Ltd. &
eState Auction House Ltd.

GOOD BYE!

[badger]

RIP John Helander, you are the gift that keeps on giving here at SF.com :D

[OULenexaman]

that's funny.....ict has no clue what that post was.....and no clue overall.