If they pass it tomorrow, we sort-of-but-not-really went over. Practically it never happened except house republicans can say they voted on a tax cut.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
- Thread starter ClovingWestbrook
- Start date
- Status
If they pass it tomorrow, we sort-of-but-not-really went over. Practically it never happened except house republicans can say they voted on a tax cut.
How do you keep making predictions when you have been so wrong? It's plain ignorance..
I'm not superstitious, but I'll admit I stopped worrying as much about the upcoming debt ceiling fight after reading PD's thoughts on it. The man's got a gift.
PhoenixDark
Banned
hold on lol, you are going to bet Obama WILL NOT negotiate over the debt limit, ie he will demand it be raised and refuse to come to the table with republicans?
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
I am not going to bet he won't negotiate but I am going to say he won't give in on cuts that affect entitlements or any area that Dems are concerned and passionate about. If he does negotiate then it will be for more tax revenue as well. You are arguing he will just give the GOP what it wants and won't stand his ground just like you argue he did this go around.
Wvery single prediction of yours has been wrong. If you were batting in baseball you would have one of the worst avg's there was. Why am I going to believe you'll hit a homerun next go around.
after the election i heard bitching on the radio how conservatives don't have a chris matthews type to fight for them.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Lol.
speculawyer
Member
LOL. They have the most popular "news" channel that fights for them 24/7.
speculawyer
Member
He should refuse to negotiate until they raise the debt limit. Negotiations are pointless otherwise. They'll pass something and then be back to square 1 in less than 2 months. Otherwise we are better off with raising taxes and starting sequester so the debt limit is less of an issue.
Maybe they meant they don't have a guy who's loud and intelligent/insightful as Matthews?
Quick thought about the sequester debt ceiling crisis cliff: it might conceivably produce an awkward position for the GOP. The purpose of opposing the debt ceiling is that they want spending cuts. The purpose of the sequester is spending cuts. So opposing both is a messaging problem -- they should really accept one and oppose the other, to be consistent.
I think that's the whole point of it. Obama might be trying to get them to admit that either spending cuts during a recession are bad for the economy or that they are just using the debt ceiling as a political prop. If this is the plan then either way Obama wins. There is no way to win for the GOP in this scenario. Looking at it this way makes the deal a bit better, but not a whole lot.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Matthews is an Obama slappy but does attack the president on more than a few occasions - many of which are too ridiculous even for me (ie him being legit mad that Obama didn't thank Clinton in his victory speech). Whereas Hannity, Rush, etc had almost nothing bad to say about Romney (or McCain) until after the election. I remember both being quite excited about Romney's aggressive attacks on Obama, whereas afterward they claimed he didn't go far enough.
Ultimately I don't believe a large portion of the conservative audience wants to be told the truth. They have constructed a reality bubble that cannot sustain any real talk; remember when the mere notion that Obama could possibly win was a liberal media conspiracy to suppress the vote? In four years they'll be smearing Nate Silver again and unskewing polls.
(Although I don't think the 2016 nominee will break minority turnout records like Obama did, which threw off some polls. It probably won't matter because the candidate will do better with whites.)
"Permanently" just means it won't come up for renewal. That doesn't necessarily mean it can't be changed in the future, I don't think.
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
God bless you barry! I would love to play poker with you, or sell you a car.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/01/obama-insisted-on-sequester-buy-down/?hpt=hp_t1
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/01/obama-insisted-on-sequester-buy-down/?hpt=hp_t1
Yeah, I get that, but think about that for a sec. How in God's name are the Dems ever gonna get another opportunity to raise taxes on capital gains/dividends ever again?
The Librarian
Banned
They did it through ACA.
I'm aware of that, but I'm probably not being clear. Let me put it this way: When are Dems gonna regain both the House AND a supermajority in the senate again? In all likelihood the Dems are never gonna get a chance like this for the next decade or so.
This is the stupidest thing about all the messaging around this. Republicans were so insistent on pushing the whole "Obama is going to raise your taxes" narrative, they missed the opportunity to position this all as a tax cut. Their stubbornness has cost them big time in terms of favorability.
cartoon_soldier
Member
The only question with the deal is WTF will now happen 2 months down the road...
polyh3dron
Banned
Come on Boehner don't cave now you orange man you
ever see the road warrior
cartoon_soldier
Member
Nope...
Supposedly the only reason Senate Dems accepted the compromise was because they were assured by the WH that they wouldn't cave to the debt ceiling hostage taking.
So yeah, we'll see. Wouldn't hold my breath on that WH promise though...
cartoon_soldier
Member
Let's see...Dems can't ask for 250k and above again.
So, I guess tax code overhaul is the next Dem fight...maybe we can ask for the Buffet rule again.
cartoon_soldier
Member
Just waiting for the house to pass this now, I think it will happen easily
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Which is why I am ok with $400k.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Gotta admit though. That 250k would've been damn nice, even if it was only about 100 billion or so in extra revenue.
cartoon_soldier
Member
How much revenue is lost with the Estate Tax not rising and Dividends being taxed at 20% instead of 39.6 (like Clinton era)?
Also, does the 600b number include the additional revenue from payroll tax cut expiring or no?
QuiteWhittle
Member
Any breakdown of the votes?
talisayNon
Member
That completely ignores the fact that the US did in fact have an income tax (on and off) before 1913, we just locked it in at that point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_history_of_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_income_tax_(legal_history)
This idea that we were some libertarian utopia before 1913 is always a big load of bull.
Also, it's a lot cheaper to run a military when you force people to participate in wars via drafts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_history_of_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_income_tax_(legal_history)
This idea that we were some libertarian utopia before 1913 is always a big load of bull.
Also, it's a lot cheaper to run a military when you force people to participate in wars via drafts.
talisayNon
Member
I don't get you guys sometimes. You've been criticizing the GOP for not being willing to compromize and now you shoot Obama down in flames because he just compromized.
The fact is that although the deal is not the ideal one what you wanted, it still is a good one. The republicans caved in pretty hard on taxes: you gotta remember that two weeks ago those guys were still refusing tax raises on millionaires!
The fact is that although the deal is not the ideal one what you wanted, it still is a good one. The republicans caved in pretty hard on taxes: you gotta remember that two weeks ago those guys were still refusing tax raises on millionaires!
The Librarian
Banned
What would your prefered outcome have been?
These guys are simply nut jobs. Good God! If the House doesnt pass this, the House conservatives need to be drummed out of Washington.
Rocket Scientist
Member
I think I'm done with American politics. Yeah.
"Guys, let's cave now when we have all the leverage. Then in two months when we don't have any, I'll be standing firm... Hey, why are you guys laughing? Hey!"
ErasureAcer
Banned
If so many Republicans voted for it this can't be good.
We didn't need taxes when we stole land from natives and sold it to rich white men.
cartoon_soldier
Member
If WH actually stands firm in 2 months we are good.
Also, interesting that Benett voted against it. He is the DSCC chair
I still think when Reid gave up, we should have let the Cliff happen and come back in a week to ask Republicans if they are ready to deal.
This 2 month BS means we are just going to keep talking about the debt, deficit, spending instead of immigration reform, assault weapons ban or anything else.
Also, interesting that Benett voted against it. He is the DSCC chair
I still think when Reid gave up, we should have let the Cliff happen and come back in a week to ask Republicans if they are ready to deal.
This 2 month BS means we are just going to keep talking about the debt, deficit, spending instead of immigration reform, assault weapons ban or anything else.
Requires the electorate to actually understand what's going on. We've already seen terms like deficit and debt twisted to mean completely different things from what they do. The GOP could easily pull out a non sequitur saying Socialism caused it and the media would repeat it verbatim.
- Status