alguien Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Holy crap: House Democrats defy Obama on tax cut billDefying President Obama, House Democrats voted Thursday not to bring up the tax package that he negotiated with Republicans in its current form."This message today is very simple: That in the form that it was negotiated, it is not acceptable to the House Democratic caucus. It's as simple as that," said Democratic Congressman Chris Van Hollen."We will continue to try and work with the White House and our Republican colleagues to try and make sure we do something right for the economy and right for jobs, and a balanced package as we go forward," he said.The vote comes a day after Vice President Biden made clear to House Democrats behind closed doors that the deal would unravel if any changes were made.This should be interesting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 The House Democrats have always had spine.It's the Senate where legislation has been going to die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Holy crap: House Democrats defy Obama on tax cut billThis should be interesting...Were they really unable to reconcile with Obama on this, one way or the other?What a clusterfuck. It's like they don't even talk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 'Free' is soooo two years ago....Haven't you heard? UHC is actually a deficit REDUCING endeavor.In other news....The trick they tend to pull is equating "deficit neutral" or "deficit reducing" with "no cost". As in "we're making the system more efficient, so we'll be getting more care for less." Which begs the question of how a bill can have a $900B price tag if it doesn't cost anything.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord O' Bones Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Which begs the question AAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGHHHH!!!!! Another moot point my ass could literally care less about...Fornicate it. I give up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 The trick they tend to pull is equating "deficit neutral" or "deficit reducing" with "no cost". As in "we're making the system more efficient, so we'll be getting more care for less." Which begs the question of how a bill can have a $900B price tag if it doesn't cost anything....It's only a "trick" if one assumes that the cost would be zero without the bill.This, obviously, is the assumption of a moron and we tend to try and assume you aren't one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 What's interesting here is that Jim DeMint is now allied with House Dems, albeit for largely different reasons. I guess if this thing falls through there are some positives, but I don't think Larry Summers' threat that a double-dip could happen without this is entirely off base. If taxes on the middle class go up and unemployment benefits end in a month, I can't see how that isn't going to stall any recovery that we may be in. But taxes on the rich would be going up too, and our deficit would be reduced by all of these actions.Sorry, but I don't see any real positives for the House Dems. It's more spite than anything else. After all, the new Congress will end up passing the bill, and Obama will sign it, so there won't be any material effect on the decifit at all. The only two effects will be: 1) Americans will see their paychecks reduced for the first couple months of 2011 due to the new withholding (for which they will blame Democrats), and 2) the House Dems have now made Republicans look like the people who are willing to "work with the President to find solutions." The first is both mean and politically stupid, while the second is just politically stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 GOP delays 9/11 Health Care bill yet again: http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2010/12/09/911-health-bill-fails-senate-vote/Also:U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi will not bring President Barack Obama's current proposed tax plan up for a vote in her chamber, an aide said on Thursday.The aide said Pelosi would require changes be made to the measure that most of her fellow House Democrats formally opposed by approving a resolution of opposition to it. The aide said: "She (Pelosi) will honor the resolution."http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSWEN422420101209Were they really unable to reconcile with Obama on this, one way or the other?What a clusterfuck. It's like they don't even talk.Rumor is that apparently post-Election, Obama had a sit-down with the Congressional Democrats to talk strategy and their plans were either bad or non-existent and he's decided to go it on his own or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormund Ukrainesbane Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Population density in Germany: 593 per square milePopulation density in the US: 83 per square milePopulation density in Norway: 31 per square mileWhat's your point?ETA: Canada 8.3, yeah I see your point. Forgot who I was replying to for a moment.I don't even know what we're talking about here, but the population density of any country, particularly Canada, the US, and Norway, is pretty irrelevant (politically) considering the HUGE swaths of absolutely unpopulated territory that they possess. Nothern Canada (Yukon, NW Territories, and Nunavut) is larger than Western Europe but has only about 100,000 people total living in it. Same with Alaska. Most Canadians live in big cities along the US border, most Americans live in California, Texas, or New York. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Sorry, but I don't see any real positives for the House Dems. It's more spite than anything else. After all, the new Congress will end up passing the bill, and Obama will sign it, so there won't be any material effect on the decifit at all. The only two effects will be: 1) Americans will see their paychecks reduced for the first couple months of 2011 due to the new withholding (for which they will blame Democrats), and 2) the House Dems have now made Republicans look like the people who are willing to "work with the President to find solutions." The first is both mean and politically stupid, while the second is just politically stupid.Except by then the tax cuts will have expired. They'll have to find some way to pass them fresh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 The trick they tend to pull is equating "deficit neutral" or "deficit reducing" with "no cost". Which begs the question of how a tax cut for the rich can have a $700B price tag if it doesn't cost anything....fixed that for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Except by then the tax cuts will have expired. They'll have to find some way to pass them fresh.True, but that happens regardless of whether the House Dems voted for or against this agreement. Either way, they'd expire in 2012. Opposition at this point just looks spiteful, particularly given that it will end up screwing over average Americans via excess withholdings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.