Way to go republicans, way to go.

[gimpy117]

Just when you thought the party of NO couldn't get any worse....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_democrats_lame_duck_politics


It's funny hoe the GOP act like children, refusing to do ANYTHING until they get exactly what they want.

[SteamWake]

Funny how the lame ducks buck them at every turn.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJSnozJ4LVg

Oh and those dip****s that decided to 'keep certain provisions' of the healthcare bill .... your on notice.

[GoldenRivet]

LOL

someones upset because the republicans want to extend tax cuts and >>>>>fund the federal government<<<<<

Guess you missed that part of the article. or did you just read the headline.





yeah :shifty:

Wouldnt want to rope in some of the zillions of dollars in unchecked spending would we?

way to go Democrats

[gimpy117]

Two wrongs don't make a right wake.

there's a difference between blocking EVERY BILL in congress and not recognizing one speaker once.

[GoldenRivet]

and all the congressional action in the world wont make two turds in a bucket if our nation is completely and totally flat broke.

[gimpy117]

and all the congressional action in the world wont make two turds in a bucket if our nation is completely and totally flat broke.

well letting the bush tax cuts expire for the rich would help with the deficit now wouldn't?

guess who wants to get the deficit under control, but at the same time only wants to cut programs instead of asking the uber rich to pony up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-mZtdI7-hY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9awmlzTMMYw&feature=channel

also relevant (at about 5:00):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCTwGxfwc7A&feature=channel

[GoldenRivet]

well letting the bush tax cuts expire for the rich would help with the deficit now wouldn't?

guess who wants to get the deficit under control, but at the same time only wants to cut programs instead of asking the uber rich to pony up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-mZtdI7-hY

Guess where the jobs for the uber middle class come from?

DING DING DING DING

the Uber rich!

sorry, but as much as both sides claim that they want the government to be funded and the budget to be balanced and the debt to be reduced each has different ways of doing it.

sticking the screws to the Uber rich - even if you taxed them at 99% is not going to reduce the debt.

the alternative is cutting the budget and eliminating some $900,000,000,000 a year in BS

the dems have their answer and the GOP has it's answer to the budget issues...

the GOP wants to, you know... cut the budget. tighten the belt. like responsible families do at home when things get tight. Sometimes you have to give up golf and steak dinners for a while.

the Dems want to leave the budget the same and go across town and simply take money from the guys in the bigger houses and continue to play golf and eat steak.

It just don't work that way.

[The Third Man]

Sounds like exactly what the electorate was looking for. The GOP is looking out for all the people when it wants to extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone.

[SteamWake]

well letting the bush tax cuts expire for the rich would help with the deficit now wouldn't?

Perhaps in the short term.

However in the long term it will crush small buisness and end up with the reduction in gains.

Though maybe thats the objective in the first place.

Enough with this class envy crap.

[GoldenRivet]

All i can say is, i had a hell of a lot more green in my pocket from "Bush" tax cuts (like it was HIS idea in the whole of history) than i do right now.

virtually every single act on the part of the federal government over the past two years has only served to the detriment of business in America.

[Sailor Steve]

It's funny hoe the GOP act like children, refusing to do ANYTHING until they get exactly what they want.
It's funny how some people are so caught up in being right that they never actually discuss the issues, just make fun of "the other side".

[gimpy117]

All i can say is, i had a hell of a lot more green in my pocket from "Bush" tax cuts (like it was HIS idea in the whole of history) than i do right now.

virtually every single act on the part of the federal government over the past two years has only served to the detriment of business in America.

they only want to raise it on the top of the public...the normal citizen won't be effected


It's funny how some people are so caught up in being right that they never actually discuss the issues, just make fun of "the other side".

It's also funny how a whole party in congress can be so caught up with getting power, that they'll block EVERY bill at the american people's expense.

[Tribesman]

all the congressional action in the world wont make two turds in a bucket
But isn't congress the bucket and the two parties the turds?

[Growler]

*sigh*

When did it become OK for there to be any form of parliamentary or executive government to be a "lame duck" in the first place?

WTH, people! We're PAYING THEM stupid amounts of money and EXPECTING NOTHING from them? Congress, President - really? We're arguing over tax cuts when we're GIVING THEM OUR TAX DOLLARS for accomplishing NOTHING.

Well played, America. Let's TOTALLY avoid looking at the issue that's right in front of us.

[GoldenRivet]

they only want to raise it on the top of the public...the normal citizen won't be effected

:haha:

For every time i had a politician tell me that.

pity there are those that still believe it.

Everything that goes down on capital hill affects the normal citizen.



do you know why why they call it capital hill?

because every turd dumped out up there rolls down it... right onto YOU

[Sailor Steve]

they only want to raise it on the top of the public...the normal citizen won't be effected
The normal citizen is always affected by anything the government does.

It's also funny how a whole party in congress can be so caught up with getting power, that they'll block EVERY bill at the american people's expense.
That argument is true of 'your' side as well. My point is that you are so one-sided that you are blind to any real discussion. This leaves you blaming the other 'party' when in fact people choose parties to run for because that's the only way to get elected. No party is composed of all one or all the other, but you refuse to see that, so you play the partisan game and make no progress at all. It's always "their" fault.

[yubba]

So they decided to put a wage freeze on federal workers that's a start, they should also cut their pay about 10% except for the grunts, if private citizens have too suffer, the government workers can make a few sacrafieses. Learn more about what they want the FDIC too do, more Billions spent, more government waste, more government.

[GoldenRivet]

So they decided to put a wage freeze on federal workers that's a start, they should also cut their pay about 10% except for the grunts, if private citizens have too suffer, the government workers can make a few sacrafieses. Learn more about what they want the FDIC too do, more Billions spent, more government waste, more government.

I'm on board with that.

[Sailor Steve]

I'm on board with that.
As am I, but I think they should cut the pay of elected Federal officials by at least 50%. They seem to have forgotten the concept of "public service".

The rank and file Federal workers? They're just doing a job they applied and got hired for. I think they're overpaid, and I think there are also way too many of them, but they didn't campaign to the public so they could "serve". :down:

[GoldenRivet]

Its the federal governments responsibility to promote the general welfare... not provide it.

they need to do away with that welfare BS right away too.

fact is there are probably a hundred things that could be done away with

[Torvald Von Mansee]

and all the congressional action in the world wont make two turds in a bucket if our nation is completely and totally flat broke.

So...make sure the wealthy get a tax cut?
:har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har:

[Torvald Von Mansee]

So they decided to put a wage freeze on federal workers that's a start, they should also cut their pay about 10% except for the grunts, if private citizens have too suffer, the government workers can make a few sacrafieses. Learn more about what they want the FDIC too do, more Billions spent, more government waste, more government.

Were you aware that many federal workers already get paid less than their private sector counterparts?

No, of course not.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Its the federal governments responsibility to promote the general welfare... not provide it.

Right...so eliminate the Estate Tax, and cut taxes for the wealthiest 1%

Do you know what "general" means?

[Sailor Steve]

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."
-James Madson, on a bill to subsidize cod fishermen, 1789

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
-James Madison, 1794

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
-Thomas Jefferson, 1798

"As a matter of fact and law, the governing rights of the States are all of those which have not been surrendered to the National Government by the Constitution or its amendments. Wisely or unwisely, people know that under the Eighteenth Amendment Congress has been given the right to legislate on this particular subject (prohibition), but this is not the case in the matter of a great number of other vital problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare and of a dozen other important features. In these, Washington must not be encouraged to interfere."
-Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1930

Funny how quickly he went back on that part about "not...social welfare".

Personally, I believe that welfare is a good idea, but at the State level. The Federal Government was created to arbitrate disputes between the states and to Represent the country as a whole to the rest of the world, and I believe that its powers should be limited to that and no more.

[Sailor Steve]

Right...so eliminate the Estate Tax, and cut taxes for the wealthiest 1%

Do you know what "general" means?
It doesn't mean what you think it does. The founders considered that to be "special" welfare. General Welfare refers to the welfare of the country as a unit. As I showed in my last post, they believed that congress had no power to fund anything private, including the poor.

[AVGWarhawk]

They seem to have forgotten the concept of "public service".

Never a truer statement!

[mookiemookie]

Guess where the jobs for the uber middle class come from?

DING DING DING DING

the Uber rich!

There is absolutely zero evidence that cutting taxes on the rich does anything to stimulate jobs or economic growth. Zero. None.

[AVGWarhawk]

There is absolutely zero evidence that cutting taxes on the rich does anything to stimulate jobs or economic growth. Zero. None.

Is there evidence that taxing them more helps? Keep taxing them. Why bother to improve yourself financially only to be raped of it in the end?

[Sailor Steve]

"Tax the rich, feed the poor, 'til there are no rich no more..."

Just a song, but after that, then what?

[mookiemookie]

Is there evidence that taxing them more helps? Keep taxing them. Why bother to improve yourself financially only to be raped of it in the end?

Would you, or anyone you know, turn down a nice raise or a big fat lottery winnings check just because you'd have to pay out a portion of it in taxes?

Didn't think so.

[GoldenRivet]

I know several people... Myself included, who have made business and personal financial decisions so as to avoid being bumped into the next tax bracket

[Sailor Steve]

Would you, or anyone you know, turn down a nice raise or a big fat lottery winnings check just because you'd have to pay out a portion of it in taxes?

Didn't think so.
So you want to use the government to keep a group in line because you feel it's morally right? How is that different from legislating religion?

[mookiemookie]

So you want to use the government to keep a group in line because you feel it's morally right? How is that different from legislating religion?

I was arguing from the standpoint that giving rich tax breaks in the name of stimulating the economy is a philosophy that's based on imagination and not any piece of actual data.

[AVGWarhawk]

I know several people... Myself included, who have made business and personal financial decisions so as to avoid being bumped into the next tax bracket


:yep:

[Sailor Steve]

I was arguing from the standpoint that giving rich tax breaks in the name of stimulating the economy is a philosophy that's based on imagination and not any piece of actual data.
Possibly, and I'm not educated enough on the subject to argue effectively, but my opposition is to the idea of government regulation at all, except where absolutely necessary.

And I only have your word that it doesn't work.

[AVGWarhawk]

Would you, or anyone you know, turn down a nice raise or a big fat lottery winnings check just because you'd have to pay out a portion of it in taxes?

Didn't think so.

Yes sir. My wife declares 0 (zero dependents) so we do not move into a higher tax bracket. She gets taxed to the hilt every two weeks for having 0 zero deductions shown. So yes, I think so. :doh:

[August]

Well how about we tax mookie and the other folks in favor of ending these tax "cuts" at say 99%. I figure they shouldn't complain since 1% is still better than nothing and there is no solid evidence that it would hurt the economy...









Right? :DL

[AVGWarhawk]

I was arguing from the standpoint that giving rich tax breaks in the name of stimulating the economy is a philosophy that's based on imagination and not any piece of actual data.


Ok, let's argue a different standpoint. Were is the evidence that it does not stimulate growth?

[mookiemookie]

I know several people... Myself included, who have made business and personal financial decisions so as to avoid being bumped into the next tax bracket

:yep:

Yes sir. My wife declares 0 (zero dependents) so we do not move into a higher tax bracket. She gets taxed to the hilt every two weeks for having 0 zero deductions shown. So yes, I think so. :doh:

Then you guys don't really understand how marginal income and a progressive tax system works.

[AVGWarhawk]

Let's flat tax everyone! :up:

[mookiemookie]

Ok, let's argue a different standpoint. Were is the evidence that it does not stimulate growth?

http://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/top-marginal-tax-rates-and-gdp-growth.jpg

If the two were indeed as correlated as you claim, then you'd see corresponding increases in GDP growth at the same time or soon after a decrease in the top marginal tax rate. The data does not bear this out.

[AVGWarhawk]

Then you guys don't really understand how marginal income and a progressive tax system works.

I'm listening professor. :DL Tell me how tax credits work and how much tax is paid by the marginal income folks.

[mookiemookie]

Well how about we tax mookie and the other folks in favor of ending these tax "cuts" at say 99%. I figure they shouldn't complain since 1% is still better than nothing and there is no solid evidence that it would hurt the economy...









Right? :DL


99% of not much ain't gonna help anything either. :O:

[mookiemookie]

I'm listening professor. :DL Tell me how tax credits work and how much tax is paid by the marginal income folks.

Shamelessly stolen from here: http://www.fivecentnickel.com/2010/01/29/will-moving-to-a-higher-income-tax-bracket-cost-you-money/

Consider a single individual earning $50,000. This puts him in the 25% tax bracket. That does not, however, mean that he pays 25% taxes on his full taxable income. Rather, he pays 10% on the first $8375 (bucket #1), 15% on the next $25,625 (bucket #2) and 25% on the remainder of his income (a partially filled bucket #3). In total, this works out to $8681.25 in taxes, or a “real” rate of roughly 17.4% (ignoring deductions, credits, and other adjustments).

If this individual got a big raise that pushed him into the 28% tax bracket, he wouldn’t lose anything. He’d pay 25% on the balance of bucket #3 (up to $82,400) and then 28% thereafter (until he hit the 33% bracket).

[GoldenRivet]

According to the "logic" of the left, that board game "life" should be reinvented so that one player has the option to leave his car with the little pegs at the start line while the other players play the game.

As the other players advance through the game they have to give their money the the player sitting at the start line. The more successful each player is, the more money they must give to him.

[AVGWarhawk]

From the same article Mookie


I work 33 hours/week at $11.40/hour. My boss wants to give me a lead position and a raise of $0.20/hour. However, he then told me he was doing some figuring, and found that the raise would put in in a new tax bracket, and would thus not be worth it. I am single, no dependents. What do you think?


How nice of the boss to save his $.20/hour. :har: He is single and no dependents? Poor fella. I guess he has a lot to worry about...you know...like himself only. Question is...does he get 401K? Health benefits? There is always more to the story then just your hourly pay when it come to taxes.

[Bubblehead1980]

Two wrongs don't make a right wake.

there's a difference between blocking EVERY BILL in congress and not recognizing one speaker once.


They are blocking bills that the rejected lame duck congress has no business trying to pass.The DREAM Act etc will be harmful to this country.They are doing what they should do in addition to fighting to prevent TAX hikes come January.Nothing wrong with being the party of NO when it makes sense, which it has for the past two years and does now also.

The current Congress is too arrogant to just sit back and wait out their lame duck term as most Americans want them to do with the exception of the tax issue and unemployment.They know they can't win in 2012 so they are trying to buy soem votes with DREAM, DADT and labor.The current Dems are such scumbags, really.

[The Third Man]

You want taxes? A consumption tax would be the best. Of course eliminating the income tax would be necessary for this to be a fair tax. The rich purchase more than the poor, and would pay more in tax by result.

[Tribesman]

You want taxes? A consumption tax would be the best
Throughout history consumption taxes have been a disaster, its a major reeason why they brought in income taxes.

[Bubblehead1980]

You want taxes? A consumption tax would be the best. Of course eliminating the income tax would be necessary for this to be a fair tax. The rich purchase more than the poor, and would pay more in tax by result.


Problem with consumption tax is it adversely affects the non rich.

For example, after college I worked at a law firm for a year, made great money so paying the outrageous taxes already have when went out to dinner, filled up my gas tank or purchased various items didnt really hurt me, I had a salary that was honestly well above the average recent college grad.I started law school this fall and moved away so no longer work there and honestly, a job in law school is not possible right now, maybe next year but during first year? yea right.I have savings and my parents help me, I am not starving or anything, have a nice car, nice apartment etc but I've had to cut my spending quite a bit compared to college and after.Pay enough tax on things already, add another tax on things and drive the cost up some more.This is nothing to someone who is literally rich but to most people, esp the poor it is an issue.Many are harmed by the taxes on various items etc because it literally takes more money from them.

[The Third Man]

An example; John Kerry attempted to dodge taxes by berthing his multi-million dollar yacht out of state. Enabling consumption tax would not allow for a trick the rich often employ. That is correct, John Kerry is rich. Loss deduction is another one.

Sales tax would also be eliminated under the consumption tax plan. And the consumption tax could be progressive, if it makes folks feel better.

[Sailor Steve]

A Federal consumption tax would not eliminate State taxes. Ergo John Kerry would have acted no differently.

[The Third Man]

A Federal consumption tax would not eliminate State taxes. Ergo John Kerry would have acted no differently.


Yep, he is still trying to take from the poor.

[Sailor Steve]

Yep, he is still trying to take from the poor.
I agree with you on Kerry, and I agree on taxes in general. I have mixed feelings about the consumption tax. I like the idea of a flat tax, but even then I'm not sure it's the right thing. Personally I like the idea of no direct tax on individuals at all, at least at the Federal level.

[The Third Man]

Well, if you think the rich will always be able to have more buying power then a consuption tax would be in the detriment of those who consume greatly. if the income tax was eliminated at the same time the consumption tax is engaged, the incentive to work would increase and saving/ not spending, which this country needs desperately would increase. It would disallow Gov't spending at the same time.

[Armistead]

Overall, I'm a moderate republican, but Bush lost me. Looking back give me Bill Clinton anytime, first balanced budget with surplus.

Tax cuts for the rich was a budget disaster, the rich got even richer and the deficit exploded under Bush . We had a great economy for a few years, but it was standing on toothpicks. Bush was the biggest spender in history as far as waste. Obama, big spender, but even though the GOP cried all non biased groups say if we didn't bail out banks the entire economy would've failed leading to disaster. The problem is not so much the bail out, but still no real regulation to make them pay it all back with interest as wall street makes some of the largest profit gains in history.

Right now the GOP has no interest in working with Obama on anything of real substance, out to destroy him and take back power. My guess is it will backfire and put Obama back in the white house for another term.

I think the only hope is if the new congress with all the tea leaves stand up to the lifelong GOP members and get something done. Congress would probably have enough money if they ran like a business forced to use the laws they force on other businesses, instead of a bunch of crack addicts looking for the next fix.

[Jimbuna]

You know something....your tax system is arguably as arguable as ours in the UK :doh:

[Takeda Shingen]

You know something....your tax system is arguably as arguable as ours in the UK :doh:

Now that would be a candidate for a quote of the year if you weren't on the committee.

[AVGWarhawk]

You know something....your tax system is arguably as arguable as ours in the UK :doh:


Yes, it is quite taxing....

[Takeda Shingen]

Oh, it's a punny, punny world. :D

[Jimbuna]

Now that would be a candidate for a quote of the year if you weren't on the committee.

Yes, it is quite taxing....

Oh, it's a punny, punny world. :D

You are both bastids...arguably :DL

[Sailor Steve]

...give me Bill Clinton anytime, first balanced budget with surplus.
But he and his congress only achieved that by raising taxes. As I said at the time, if you truly believe they accomplished a good thing then you should root for congress to tax all of us 100%, and give us back what they think we deserve.

[Sailor Steve]

You know something....your tax system is arguably as arguable as ours in the UK :doh:
I would argue that you are wrong. Our taxes cause no arguments, just vitriol.

Or is that what you were arguing for?

[gimpy117]

Ok, let's argue a different standpoint. Were is the evidence that it does not stimulate growth?

the fact that wages of the upper 1% have increased greatly since the 80'S but the middle class have not seen much growth at all


But he and his congress only achieved that by raising taxes. As I said at the time, if you truly believe they accomplished a good thing then you should root for congress to tax all of us 100%, and give us back what they think we deserve.

Also, too me it seems a little bit backwards to be complaining because the government had to raise taxes too keep it's budget balanced. I mean haven forbid we don't go into debt

[Jimbuna]

I would argue that you are wrong. Our taxes cause no arguments, just vitriol.

Or is that what you were arguing for?

Something like that :DL

[Growler]

I got an idea:

Let's just pay Congress what we think they're worth.

[razark]

I got an idea:

Let's just pay Congress what we think they're worth.
Wouldn't that be called "tax evasion"?

[Growler]

Heh.

"A second flood, a simple famine, plagues of locusts everywhere, or a cataclysmic earthquake, I'd accept with some despair. But no, You sent us Congress! Good God, Sir, was that fair?"

[August]

Overall, I'm a moderate republican, but Bush lost me. Looking back give me Bill Clinton anytime, first balanced budget with surplus.

Thanks to a Republican dominated Congress. The president does not set the budget balanced or not. That is the purview of the Congress.

Tax cuts for the rich was a budget disaster, the rich got even richer and the deficit exploded under Bush . We had a great economy for a few years, but it was standing on toothpicks. Bush was the biggest spender in history as far as waste. Obama, big spender, but even though the GOP cried all non biased groups say if we didn't bail out banks the entire economy would've failed leading to disaster. The problem is not so much the bail out, but still no real regulation to make them pay it all back with interest as wall street makes some of the largest profit gains in history.

Again it's the Congress who appropriates the money, not the President. Big spender Obama doesn't spend dime one unless the US Congress gives it to him to spend.

[SteamWake]

Here is a crazy idea...Instead of rasing taxes (which is basically what eliminating the tax cuts is) lets address spending??

[Blood_splat]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTcL6Xc_eMM

[mookiemookie]

Here is a crazy idea...Instead of rasing taxes (which is basically what eliminating the tax cuts is) lets address spending??

Because a combination of both is needed to address the deficit.

[SteamWake]

Because a combination of both is needed to address the deficit.

Strange I dont remember much discussion on the spending aspect.

All I hear is "You republicans" and "You democrats" and "we need more income".

[GoldenRivet]

And if you read enough articles on this subject

this all started when house republicans sent a letter to Harry Reid stating that they would not work with him on bills until Tax Cuts were extended to ALL Americans... not just those "filthy good for nothing billionaires".

Seek and ye shall find.

[Takeda Shingen]

Why is the Right so upset? In a few weeks, Tears of Joy Boehner and his crew will take over the house and achieve parity in the Senate. By this time next year Healthcare Reform will be gone, the tax code will be perfect, the economic crisis will be a thing of the past, the poor will be ejected to Mexico, Afghanistan will be a US territory, the border will be perfectly secured and every airport in the nation will be named after Ronald Reagan. Utopia.

[Sailor Steve]

Because a combination of both is needed to address the deficit.
Funny, it didn't take both to create it.

[GoldenRivet]

By this time next year Healthcare Reform will be gone, the tax code will be perfect, the economic crisis will be a thing of the past, the poor will be ejected to Mexico, Afghanistan will be a US territory, the border will be perfectly secured and every airport in the nation will be named after Ronald Reagan. Utopia.

I wouldnt go that far ;)

But i can sure think of a few things that won't happen

[Takeda Shingen]

I wouldnt go that far ;)

But i can sure think of a few things that won't happen

Yeah, I was pulling the chain on a lot of that. In seriousness, though, Team R sold the American people on the complete and total repeal of Healthcare Reform. It is what they preached and screeched about during the entire campaign. Should they achieve anything less, their tenure will be a failure. I suspect that failure waits in the wings.

[mookiemookie]

. In seriousness, though, Team R sold the American people on the complete and total repeal of Healthcare Reform. It is what they preached and screeched about during the entire campaign. Should they achieve anything less, their tenure will be a failure. I suspect that failure waits in the wings.

And here we see the poor short term memory of the American voting public. In regards to health care reform, he did exactly what he said he would do in the '08 campaign (aside from a public option).

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/mar/26/health-care-promises-resolved/

[Takeda Shingen]

And here we see the poor short term memory of the American voting public. In regards to health care reform, he did exactly what he said he would do in the '08 campaign (aside from a public option).

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/mar/26/health-care-promises-resolved/

I think you are right there. Obama acted exactly in the manner he said he would. My point was that he was derided for having an unrealistic vision in his Hope and Change mantra. The irony is that Team R got itself elected by promising a very similar impossiblity in the total repeal of Healthcare Reform. They do not have the votes to accomplish this, and very well knew that they wouldn't back when they were promising to do so, selling the American public yet another lemon in the process. I believe their feet should be held to the fire, just as they did to Team D. Total repeal or failure is the game, and they set the rules themselves.

The parties are so similar that we need those little R's and D's just so we can tell them apart.

[GoldenRivet]

And here we see the poor short term memory of the American voting public. In regards to health care reform, he did exactly what he said he would do in the '08 campaign (aside from a public option).

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/mar/26/health-care-promises-resolved/

While i agree with some of the health care reform bullet points.

the problem is the Democrats outright refusal to budge on the parts that the right didnt agree with.

American's are becoming more and more dependent on government to take care of them.

some of us tend to think that is a dangerous position to be in.

others just look forward to the first and the fifteenth. :nope:

[Tchocky]

the problem is the Democrats outright refusal to budge on the parts that the right didnt agree with.

So, about that public option then...

[mookiemookie]

The parties are so similar that we need those little R's and D's just so we can tell them apart.

Indeed. The Republicrats and the Democans are two sides of the same filthy rotten coin.

[GoldenRivet]

So, about that public option then...

if its the public option "not to have a damned thing to do with this bill" then we are good.

[Growler]

In the great reckoning of things, we are those people who are standing in the streets listening to the strains of a fiddle emanating from Washington, while the acrid odor of smoke builds around us.

And amazingly enough, instead of fighting the fires, many Americans are content to accept the warmth and light that the government provided. Others don't even smell the smoke. /allegory

Politicians are looking out for themselves. Don't let anyone fool you on that score. They are not concerned with the "right thing" anymore; it's all about the "politically-expedient" thing. War on Drugs was the right thing, right? Sure, if you're a Defense Contractor. AVGWarhawk'll tell you - take a walk down a few blocks from the Inner Harbor in B-more and tell me how that War on Drugs is working for you.

Gun control's a funny joke, too. I'm sure ever gun offender in B-more committed his crime with a legally owned gun. Yup. Sure thing.

And what are Americans doing about it? Screaming, "Save us, Uncle Sam! Protect us from ourselves!"

Americans have reached the infantile point of wanting someone else to be responsible for EVERYTHING that goes wrong, yet get credit for everything that goes right.

And the sad thing is, none of the above is exclusively true about one faction or another: It's a collective observation of everything the media is saying on one side about the other, and vice-versa.

I have yet to walk into a store and ask the owner if they're for or against tax cuts, then basing my decision to purchase on that. We're all in a tizzy over a totally useless government system that is slowly regulating us to death, and life is still going on.

What's the disconnect, then? Apathy? A sense of powerlessness? Irresponsibility?

[AVGWarhawk]

AVGWarhawk'll tell you - take a walk down a few blocks from the Inner Harbor in B-more and tell me how that War on Drugs is working for you.

I can't I'm to busy dodging bullets! :o

[The Third Man]

Honestly, as of now the Democrats have the majority in the House of Representatives, the Senate and the White House. If other things than Tax Cut extention are needed it can and will be done.

If they aren't done, and they are important, it is only the Democrats who are to blame.