Obama, Republicans reach deal on fiscal cliff; Senate vote expected tonight

[rdowns]

Originally Posted by quagmire

I'm truly shocked that the Senate deal passed 89-8...... I was expecting 61-39 like almost every hot topic bill seems to pass with these days.

I think it got a lot of R votes because they know the house will never pass any bill without spending cuts.

[chris200x9]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Taxes were at infinity percent under Clinton?

What is hyperbole?

Originally Posted by rdowns

I think it got a lot of R votes because they know the house will never pass any bill without spending cuts.

Ah the good old "Let's not do work because someone else will do it." Deferring work, typical congress...

[quagmire]

Originally Posted by rdowns

I think it got a lot of R votes because they know the house will never pass any bill without spending cuts.

Maybe. I will give the Senate props, they stayed until a deal was reached and voted on it. The House said screw it and left. Way to fight for the American public House.....

[63dot]

Originally Posted by quagmire

Maybe. I will give the Senate props, they stayed until a deal was reached and voted on it. The House said screw it and left. Way to fight for the American public House.....

The strong GOP majority won't let it pass unless some modifications are made in their favor. Whether Boehner is playing the hero or the victim, there's no doubt in my mind he knows exactly what he wants, and when. He holding out for the latest GOP counterattack. Whether they started that way or not, the GOP does want a type of monarchy with the rulers being a few small group of very rich people. Damn the concept of democracy.

[samiwas]

Originally Posted by ugahairydawgs

The rich have been successfully vilified in this country...

I would suggest that the poor have been equally, if not more, vilified than the rich. And the middle class isn't getting a whole lot of love, either. It might just be that everyone is vilifying everyone else, and the rich just have a bigger voice to cry about it.

[ugahairydawgs]

https://mobile.twitter.com/ChadPergr...74557783912448

If that number is accurate I don't see how this makes it brought the House.

[zioxide]

Originally Posted by thewitt

Anything less is political posturing.

In what universe does this make sense?

This is what happens when you rig the congressional districts to make it easier to get elected. Instead of districts with a mix of both parties, we now have "red districts" and "blue districts." They don't have anyone to answer too. In the past, when districts were mixed, the representatives had to answer to a mix of people from both parties, so they had to compromise to get things done or they would get voted out. This won't happen anymore. As long as they stand firm on the positions they were elected on and refuse compromise, they'll win reelection. If they do compromise, they get painted as weak, giving in to the other parties demands, etc, and then they get voted out. This will not change until we change the way the House of Representatives is elected, but when you divide America like they did when they redrew the districts, is anyone really surprised that the House is so divided and can't get ANYTHING done?


It was kind of funny when this came back to bite Boehner in the ass last week when he couldn't even get the tea party on board with the rest of the Republicans.

Originally Posted by Renzatic

It's not so much they don't care as it is they're dead set on repeating the same mistakes that got us into this mess in the first place. It's like they're expecting magically different results from the same tired actions.

That seems to be the modus operandi of the Republican party. While I can't place the current blames of society solely on their shoulders, they practically had 8 years to do things exactly how they wanted with only token, mealy mouthed opposition from the Democrats. And what did it do for us? Did cutting extraneous government spending lower the deficit? Did bolstering the military lead us back to WWII levels of economic productivity? Did deregulation oil the gears of trade? Did trickle down trickle down? No. It made things considerably worse.

...so why is doing the exact same thing that created so many problems for us not even 6 years ago going to suddenly work now?

The Republican party cares about nothing but being in power, and the people who vote for them usually aren't very intelligent, so they repeat the same tired and failed talking points in hopes that people are stupid enough to believe that this time it will work... when in reality, if it didn't work before, it's not going to work now.

Originally Posted by thewitt

Blame anyone you want, the fact is this bs legislation does absolutely nothing to address the so-called fiscal cliff, and we are fast approaching an honest to goodness depression.

It's up to the current administration and congress to take the steps necessary to fix the problem, and this fixes nothing.

Let's be realistic. I know you're an Obama hater but there's nothing more he can do here. It's up to the idiots in the House. It's their job to negotiate and set the budget. The President is part of a completely different branch of government, and in reality all he does is sign or veto legislation. There hasn't been a single bill related to this "fiscal cliff" even put on his desk yet, so until he has either passed or vetoed this at least once, you can only blame the House for not doing their jobs.

It's a disgrace and a sham and we should remove the lot of them - both parties - for trying to BS the people into believing that this is even a partial fix.

This goes along with what I said above. Redistricting screwed us big time because these guys being elected from a district that is either extremely red or blue means they only have to pander to these extremes and not the moderates. As long as they stand their ground, they have no fear of being voted out, and they know if they do compromise, they will lose their jobs, so it's pretty easy to see why nothing is getting done.


On top of that, the President (a democrat) was reelected by pretty much a landslide and the Senate has a democrat majority, which just goes to highlight how the House of Representatives doesn't represent America very well. But like I said, this is what happens when you redraw the districts to pander to your base and make it easier to win the election.

We could fix a lot of this by eliminating the congressional districts and just dividing it up by state like the Senate does. Except for the extreme red and blue states, the Representatives would have to answer to a much broader group of people on the political spectrum, and this would force them to compromise and actually get things done or they would lose their jobs.

[MacNut]

Originally Posted by zioxide

We could fix a lot of this by eliminating the congressional districts and just dividing it up by state like the Senate does. Except for the extreme red and blue states, the Representatives would have to answer to a much broader group of people on the political spectrum, and this would force them to compromise and actually get things done or they would lose their jobs.

There have been guys in for over 30 years, if they haven't gotten voted out yet they never will. Voters are just blind sheep. There is plenty of blame to go all around. Democrats, Republicans, and the president have all used the cameras to pump their chests and say, "don't blame us it's the other guy". Nobody want's to take responsibility or take the blame. The can will continue to be kicked down the road.

[bradl]

Originally Posted by thewitt

Blame anyone you want, the fact is this bs legislation does absolutely nothing to address the so-called fiscal cliff, and we are fast approaching an honest to goodness depression.

It's up to the current administration and congress to take the steps necessary to fix the problem, and this fixes nothing.

Or perhaps the previous administrations should have been more fiscally responsible (a principle you conservatives grandstand on all day, night and any day that ends with 'day') with the money and budgets your lot passed. But no. You blame the current administration and say that it is up to them on something the previous lot passed, put into place, and spent like water falling over Niagara Falls.

So how about taking some responsibility, especially FISCAL responsibility, and own up to it. Your lot got us into this, and are resisting getting us out of it because your lot thinks that it will make you look weak to your base. That is sad and pathetic.

BL.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by rdowns

I think it got a lot of R votes because they know the house will never pass any bill without spending cuts.

And then it will be squarely the fault of Republicans in the House if it fails . I think they will pass it.

[zioxide]

Originally Posted by MacNut

There have been guys in for over 30 years, if they haven't gotten voted out yet they never will. Voters are just blind sheep. There is plenty of blame to go all around. Democrats, Republicans, and the president have all used the cameras to pump their chests and say, "don't blame us it's the other guy". Nobody want's to take responsibility or take the blame. The can will continue to be kicked down the road.

This is such a baseless and just bad argument. You can't judge an individual's job performance based on how long they have been doing the job, you have to look at the actual work they do. So try looking at their voting records instead of just the time they have been in office. Maybe there's a reason they haven't been voted out?

I'm guessing you're going to find that many that have been there a long time have a much better track record of compromising and actually getting things done than the ones that have been there for a short period of time or just recently elected.

We've had elected officials for the entire 237 year history of our country and up until the last decade or so they never had these kind of problems compromising to get a deal done. The older politicians are the ones who realize they have to give up some things in order to get other things that they want, nobody will ever get everything they want, but you have to compromise in order to get things done. The ones who are new and were just elected recently brought in this "my way or the highway" attitude which just won't work in politics. It never has and it never will. The tea party is the obvious example of this, but it's not limited to just them.

Originally Posted by bradl

Or perhaps the previous administrations should have been more fiscally responsible (a principle you conservatives grandstand on all day, night and any day that ends with 'day') with the money and budgets your lot passed. But no. You blame the current administration and say that it is up to them on something the previous lot passed, put into place, and spent like water falling over Niagara Falls.

So how about taking some responsibility, especially FISCAL responsibility, and own up to it. Your lot got us into this, and are resisting getting us out of it because your lot thinks that it will make you look weak to your base. That is sad and pathetic.

BL.

Spot on. And the part I bolded brings me back to what I was talking about above.

You will NEVER see compromise or anything getting done if these Reps only have to answer to their hardcore base and not the rest of the electorate. The system is broken and anyone expecting any magical fixes anytime soon is going to be very disappointed.

[MacNut]

Originally Posted by zioxide

This is such a baseless and just bad argument. You can't judge an individual's job performance based on how long they have been doing the job, you have to look at the actual work they do. So try looking at their voting records instead of just the time they have been in office. Maybe there's a reason they haven't been voted out?

I'm guessing you're going to find that many that have been there a long time have a much better track record of compromising and actually getting things done than the ones that have been there for a short period of time or just recently elected.

We've had elected officials for the entire 237 year history of our country and up until the last decade or so they never had these kind of problems compromising to get a deal done. The older politicians are the ones who realize they have to give up some things in order to get other things that they want, nobody will ever get everything they want, but you have to compromise in order to get things done. The ones who are new and were just elected recently brought in this "my way or the highway" attitude which just won't work in politics. It never has and it never will. The tea party is the obvious example of this, but it's not limited to just them.




Spot on. And the part I bolded brings me back to what I was talking about above.

You will NEVER see compromise or anything getting done if these Reps only have to answer to their hardcore base and not the rest of the electorate. The system is broken and anyone expecting any magical fixes anytime soon is going to be very disappointed.

Just because they have agreed in the past doesn't mean they should be in office until they die. And don't tell me that they have always had our best interest in the past. They do what they need to stay elected.

[Huntn]

So the House still has to vote. Should be interesting...

[zioxide]

Originally Posted by MacNut

Just because they have agreed in the past doesn't mean they should be in office until they die.

They don't stay in office "until they die". They stay in office until their term is up, and then they can run again. If the people of the state they are representing are happy with what they are doing and choose to elect them again, they can.

Personally I wouldn't be opposed to term limits for Congress but it is what it is for now.

And don't tell me that they have always had our best interest in the past. They do what they need to stay elected.

Yes, but in the past when you didn't have "red" and "blue" districts and the people they were representing were from all parts of the political, they had to compromise and get things done to stay elected.

Now, with the districts rigged to be "red" and "blue", the only way to stay elected is to "stand firm" and refuse to compromise on anything, regardless if anything gets done or you hurt anyone in the process.

We saw proof of this with the Republicans who were voted out in this past election and replaced by tea partiers because they didn't refuse to agree with the President on EVERY issue they faced.

[MacNut]

Originally Posted by zioxide

They don't stay in office "until they die". They stay in office until their term is up, and then they can run again. If the people of the state they are representing are happy with what they are doing and choose to elect them again, they can.

Personally I wouldn't be opposed to term limits for Congress but it is what it is for now.



Yes, but in the past when you didn't have "red" and "blue" districts and the people they were representing were from all parts of the political, they had to compromise and get things done to stay elected.

Now, with the districts rigged to be "red" and "blue", the only way to stay elected is to "stand firm" and refuse to compromise on anything, regardless if anything gets done or you hurt anyone in the process.

We saw proof of this with the Republicans who were voted out in this past election and replaced by tea partiers because they didn't refuse to agree with the President on EVERY issue they faced.

I agree about the redistricting, it has really screwed up voting locations as well. However even before the districts where royally ****ed up, congressman would just get reelected. How else did we get these "career politicians". It isn't because of their stellar voting records.

[ugahairydawgs]

Originally Posted by MacNut

I agree about the redistricting, it has really screwed up voting locations as well. However even before the districts where royally ****ed up, congressman would just get reelected. How else did we get these "career politicians". It isn't because of their stellar voting records.

It's the old saying...everyone hates Congress but loves their Congressman. People like to rail on members for all of the various pork projects but love their guy for bringing it home.

Little bit of laziness, little bit of hypocrisy.

[rdowns]

Oh, this is encouraging.

@LukeRussert: If House GOP sends this deal back amended, it's dead. No chance Reid moves on amended bill. House will force USA off cliff.

[ugahairydawgs]

Originally Posted by rdowns

Oh, this is encouraging.

@LukeRussert: If House GOP sends this deal back amended, it's dead. No chance Reid moves on amended bill. House will force USA off cliff.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...9-8-85640.html

[zioxide]

Originally Posted by rdowns

Oh, this is encouraging.

@LukeRussert: If House GOP sends this deal back amended, it's dead. No chance Reid moves on amended bill. House will force USA off cliff.

As far as I'm concerned, if these House GOPers are so dense, unwilling to compromise, and concede the mandate that the electorate gave them when they reelected President Obama, then take us right off the cliff.

All of these spending cuts are needed anyways and the new Congress can just pass a tax break for families making under $250,000 a year.

The GOP shouldn't be able to hold the country hostage by sticking to their archaic beliefs that aren't supported by the majority of the electorate. Time for them to swallow their pride and give in to the will of the majority.

[MacNut]

Originally Posted by zioxide

As far as I'm concerned, if these House GOPers are so dense, unwilling to compromise, and concede the mandate that the electorate gave them when they reelected President Obama, then take us right off the cliff.

All of these spending cuts are needed anyways and the new Congress can just pass a tax break for families making under $250,000 a year.

The GOP shouldn't be able to hold the country hostage by sticking to their archaic beliefs that aren't supported by the majority of the electorate. Time for them to swallow their pride and give in to the will of the majority.

We have to cut spending, we can't just raise taxes and keep on the path to endless debt. This bill does't nothing to fix our long term problems of uncontrollable spending.

[ugahairydawgs]

Originally Posted by zioxide

As far as I'm concerned, if these House GOPers are so dense, unwilling to compromise, and concede the mandate that the electorate gave them when they reelected President Obama, then take us right off the cliff.

All of these spending cuts are needed anyways and the new Congress can just pass a tax break for families making under $250,000 a year.

The GOP shouldn't be able to hold the country hostage by sticking to their archaic beliefs that aren't supported by the majority of the electorate. Time for them to swallow their pride and give in to the will of the majority.

The problem many have with this bill has nothing to do with tax increases. Rates are going up and just about everyone is fine with that. The problem stems from the spending cuts (or lack thereof).

[rdowns]

Originally Posted by MacNut

We have to cut spending, we can't just raise taxes and keep on the path to endless debt. This bill does't nothing to fix our long term problems of uncontrollable spending.

Yes, we need to cut spending. What we don't need is a Republican induced 15% haircut on our retirement accounts.

[MacNut]

Originally Posted by rdowns

Yes, we need to cut spending. What we don't need is a Republican induced 15% haircut on our retirement accounts.

We need to lock all of them in a room with nothing but Honey Boo Boo and the Kardashians playing non stop. That should force them to work out a meaningful deal.

This half ass pat each other on the back crap isn't going to fix anything.

[GermanyChris]

Originally Posted by ugahairydawgs

They pretty much have no choice at this point. The rich have been successfully vilified in this country and any attempt to not pass it will open the Rs up to being painted as trying to keep the poor down.

It probably won't be the same wide spread it was in the senate, but I'm sure this pathetic "compromise" will pass.

And now with some luck they can be marginalized.

[ugahairydawgs]

Originally Posted by GermanyChris

And now with some luck they can be marginalized.

See what I mean