Skip to comments.Cliff Deal Hinges on Senators
Posted on 12/28/2012 5:14:01 PM PST by Sub-Driver
Cliff Deal Hinges on Senators White House Meeting Ends With Expressions of Cautious Optimism From Both Sides on Negotiations By JANET HOOK and CAROL E. LEE
WASHINGTONThe job of averting year-end tax increases and spending cuts landed squarely on the Senate, whose leaders said Friday they would launch a last-ditch weekend effort to avert the so-called fiscal cliff.
President Barack Obama met with all four congressional leaders in an hourlong meeting in the Oval Office to review an increasingly narrow range of options.
He later said he was "modestly optimistic" a deal could be reached, echoing comments from the top Democrat and Republican in the Senate.
"We had a good meeting down at the White House and we are engaged in discussions in the hopes that we can come forward as early as Sunday" with a plan, said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.). "We'll be working hard to try to see if we can get there in the next 24 hours," he said, adding he was "hopeful and optimistic."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) agreed the meeting was "constructive." In a warning that seemed aimed at lawmakers in both parties, he said, "whatever we come up with is going to be imperfect."
Mr. Obama said Messrs. McConnell and Reid have the weekend to reach and pass a deal.
In a move meant to pressure Republicans, Mr. Obama asked Mr. Reid and House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) to bring up a bill to extend income-tax rates for income under $250,000 and unemployment-insurance benefits if Senate leaders can't reach an agreement. "The hour for immediate action is here, it is now," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Geeeeze, stop making yourself look more idiotic than you already have.
My point was obvious. Throwing all the bums (bums meaning incumbents) out from both parties, which is what the poster I was responding to orginially suggested, is a dumb idea that doesn't work or happen. Then you bumbled along calling names and yakking about 2010. Let me make this clear one more time so that perhaps it will seep in to your thick skull. 2010 was NOT a throw all the bums out from both parties election. Are we clear? That is not what happened. In 2010 we voted to kick Democrat incumbents out and to keep Republican incumbents in. That is not a throw all the bums out election, that is a throw the Democrats out election.
It's not that I don't get them -- it's that I completely reject them.
No, the problem is you're just not particularly politically savvy and your posts and commentary prove this on a regular basis. You're just sort of a dim bulb and should at least consider refraining from comment till you thoroughly understand the topic at hand.
That's what I've been trying to tell YOU.
As a first step.
The second is that, throwing out all the bums means "throw out all DEMS, and *replace* RINO, GOP-e types with conservatives."
Want me to throw in the Obaama kneepad accessories for your Boehner Bobblehead doll, there?
According to the brilliant Bianna Golodryga just now on ABC News, the cliff mess could screw up the rip roaring Obama economic recovery that’s ongoing.
The first thing that flashed into my mind as I tried to decipher her name was
Don't ask me if that is significant.
Well, you're definitely a foul mouthed type of person. Not what I expect to see on a family oriented site.
That's what I've been trying to tell YOU.
LOL, you're such a dolt man. I mean, I guess every forum has some dunderheads like yourself, but it's difficult to believe you can really be this slow.
This was the comment I originally responded to from tenmountainman:
Throw all the bums out election on both sides.
Here was my response to tenmountainman:
Really? Are we back to this silly populist sounding nonsense? This "throw all the bums out" stuff has never worked. It's a meaningless statement. If you throw a Republican out, you're going to get a Democrat who is more liberal. Period. There are no candidates from any other party's that are going to win these seats. It's either Republican or Democrat. If you throw a Republican out, you get a Democrat. If you throw a Democrat out you get a Republican. If you have a "throw all the bums out election" the House would switch to Democrat control and the Senate to Republicans which would result in no meaningful change.
To which you barge in and said to me:
Forgot 2010, troll-boy?
My original point stands. 2010 was NOT a throw all the bums from both sides out election. Why you elbowed your way into the conversation with a bunch of insults and stupid commentary I don't know. You're wrong as usual, and you've accomplished nothing more than to make a jerk out of yourself.
"Kneepads" are as much a part of the political vernacular as "Kool-Aid".
Nice try, though.
My original point stands. 2010 was NOT a throw all the bums from both sides out election.
No, but it *should* have been : and it wasn't.
Explicitly because of the GOP-e, RINO, troll types like you, who insist, and poison the minds of others, to think that
If you throw a Republican out, you're going to get a Democrat who is more liberal. Period.
You sound like you want to spend more quality time with Karl Rove.
Recall, compare, and contrast Rove's record for Congressional Elections up to 2010, with the Tea Party in 2010:
In past elections, (say 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008) we had the following:
2002 -- a year after the 9-11 attacks, and Americans want security, dammit! The GOP gains 8 seats in the House and 2 in the Senate.
2004 -- Presidential Election; the first one after the "Sore Loserman" debacle in Florida in 2000, and the first one after 9-11.
The GOP picks up 3 seats in the House, the Donks lose 2.
The GOP picks up 4 Senate seats, the Donks lose 4.
Bush wins 31 states, but a mere 286 electoral votes, with a bare 50.7% of the popular vote.
2006 -- the Midterm elections for Bush's second term.
The Dems pick up the House, gaining 31 seats, while the GOP loses 30.
The Dems get the Senate, too, winning 6 seats.
This despite the presence of "The Architect" Karl Rove who brags about his detailed knowledge of the ground game.
But (as we will see) he learned his lesson, after a fashion.
2008 -- the annointing of Teh One.
Obama wins 365 electoral votes in 28 states + a single Congressional district in Nebraska. (Nebraska??!!)
The Donks extend their lead in the House, gaining 21 seats.
And in the Senate, they run the table, gaining 8 seats.
The election is marked by numerous unchallenged shenanigans, including voter fraud (voting by felons, votes found in car trunks) in Minnesota, and infamous re-counts in Washington State.
The only thing preventing a total rout is Sarah Palin, who is roundly condemned by the establishment, but targeted by the Dems, after being trashed by advisors lent by the Rockefeller wing of the GOP (as detailed later in Going Rogue).
So, let's look at the record of the Establishment GOP since the first election of George W. Bush (where the victory was so narrow that the Dems complained he was "selected, not elected." (And that, over Clinton's hand-picked successor.)
House: +8 +3 -30 -21 net --> -40
Senate: +2 +4 -6 -8 net --> -8
Heckuva job, Karl.
Compare that to the Tea Parties:
No, but it *should* have been : and it wasn't.
Again, you're a dimwit.
The conclusions follow from the numbers. Running RINOs does NOT work as well as running and supporting conservatives -- note the number of times *establishment* candidates backstab and refuse to support the conservatives who have primaried them, e.g. Murkowski in Alaska, or to fail to support conservatism in general, from Gingrich's attitude regarding Scozzafava in NY district 23, or Coleman's not pushing for a recount in the Franken election in Minnesota, despite the after-the-fact review showing that there were more votes cast by felons than the initial vote discrepancy...
And somehow I knew you'd jam Sarah Palin into the discussion. Weren't you one of those fanatics that were sure she was going to run in 2012 even when it was obvious she wasn't?
Sarah Palin helped a lot in 2010 even though she had been shamefully treated during and after the campaign -- remember the spurious lawsuits (such as her *legal defense fund* being declared "illegal" ??) -- and she still was of great value in 2010.
Which, despite your attempts to move to the goalposts when it suits you, was the election cycle originally under question.
Nice try at ad hoc ex post facto ad hominem, troll-boy. I didn't know you had that much latin in you.
The House should make the Senate pass a budget before any other input is accepted from them.
EVERYBODY, including the rats, knows that the meaningless, drop-in-the-bucket tax hike on the rich does next to nothing to address Americas debt and deficit and is, rather, a purely symbolic concession demanded by the rats for the sole purpose of dividing and ultimately destroying the GOP.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As an historian I disagree with your conclusion that taxing the so called wealthy class is merely symbolic.
Obama means to exercise the IRS in a catchment of administrative intimidation of the wealthy, by audit, pre judgement asset seizure( alowed under the Taxc Code), and executive fiat.
Obama cannot establish his much desired Socialist America as long as there is a functional investment class which creates jobs and wealth in the USA. Just as in Germany and Italy in the q920s and 1930s, the4 fascists movements there had to subjugate and destroy the wealthy class so they could seize control of the economy and dictate who made wealth and when. In addition the fascist movements got their cut in what can be seen as a kind of legal fascist extortion.
This is why Obama wants the tax on the rich so badly. He has positioned the IRS to agressively intimidate, audit and prosecute the wealthy class of the USA.Obama has prepared the IRS by extra hires, and has armed and ammoed them up.
If the GOP supports any plan on taxation of the so called wealthy, then you will see the beginning of the end of a free economy in the USA, and the IRS will be the tool that accomplishes it.When one understands the fascist movements of Europe and applies their historical social trends to Obama, he becomes absolutely predictable.
The GOP needs to defend the entrepreneurial class of America. If the GOP does not, then the economic engine of the greatest nation on earth will be subjugated by Nationalist Socialism and destroyed.
Sorry, but I don't see why Ubanga couldn't do all of that with rates right where they are. How would increasing the tax rate on "the rich" a few percentage points change anything? For that matter, it seems to me that the slimy GOP sneak attack of "closing loopholes and capping deductions" would give the IRS more targets to shoot at. By your scenario, Ubanga should like that option even more than a simple rate hike.
No. I maintain the whole "rate hike on the rich" demand is a pure, 100% political ploy.
Sorry, but I don’t see why Ubanga couldn’t do all of that with rates right where they are. How would increasing the tax rate on “the rich” a few percentage points change anything?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes that is the case, but do you not yet understand the Obama “campaign.?” Obama’s first term was a shot across the bow to the wealthy.Many understood this and removed their funds to places abroad; even democrat wealth resigned ther citizenship and moved to places like Singapore, but few understood this canary in a cage. Now Obama will misuse the IRS to attack the investment class, just like he has misued the EPA to shut down various coal producers etc. Now the IRS is about to become an attack machine. You have to understand Obama in the context of fascism, and what he must do to convert our nation into a socialist state,base don historical precedents of fascism in Europe.This will be Obama’s next step, and the GOP is handing that all to him without protecting the investment class of the USA.
You can now wave goodbye to the free economy of the USA. Next Obama will subdue America by effectively ending the 2nd amendment via executive order, just as he empowered the EPA to shut down businesses illegally.
No one opposes Obama effectively without being ruined politically, and Washington is full of cowards. These cowards refuse to admit publicly just what kind of political animal Obama is, a fascist, and they fail to oppose him as The People deserve. What you see is tyranny being born with hardly a whimper, rather you see celebration and jubilation as if its a bizarro New Years celebration. Its a joke on a cosmic scale.Its far past gauche and now enters the realm of banal.
The GOP needs too pull the plug on the Obama campaign. Lets go over the cliff and see how America likes it, then Obama can “save us all” during his second term.Obama’s campaign to socialize America must come to an end.
Karl Rove is worse than a zit pustule on the arse of a
fleeing, bleating, democrat, vegetarian herbivore. Have you noticed that all such creatures have notoriously bad breath? And Longblow , well, is a RINO troll operator who is duty bound to his GOP matrix masters, to nip any truth about the GOP and Rove in the bud. He fails miserably..
Sarah Palin may yet run. I hope she does. The country needs all of the Sarah Palins we can get at this point. We are losing our nation to vile tyranny.
No, your conclusions are stupid - and pretty much what I've come to expect from you. You mix apples and oranges, years when we already held the House versus years we didn't, presidential and off year cycles. I'm trying to do you a favor when I say this, you're just not very politically bright and you make a fool of yourself regularly. In light of this, you should really think through and understand the discussion before you shoot off your mouth.
I remember your Sarah Palin infatuation. You were wrong again about that too. I recall you were one of those fanatics that refused to accept she wasn't going to run in 2012 - even when it was completely obvious she was going to stick to her TV gig. You were so politically blind you made a complete idiot of yourself - just like you are doing now.
My original point is correct and stands. 2010 was NOT a throw all the bums from both parties out election - it was a throw the Democrats out election.
But his actual track record *sucks*.
I posted all of those elections in succession to prove that even with *repeated* chances, RINOs don't do as well as they are promised to; and in fact the losses by running RINOs are about as bad as the bloodbaths threatened should (gasp!) true conservatives ever get their preferred candidates on the ticket.
I know you have some ulterior motive for pressing for the RINOs and the GOP-e over and Over and OVER around here, but you no longer have any hope of convincing rational people.
Your still a dingbat man. You’re posts are terrible and make little sense. You get infatuated with people like Palin (maybe you still think she’s running) and Rove and keep bleating about them nonsensically. Politically, your level of understanding is below that of a typical teenage kid - and I suspect all the name calling you do is your attempt to compensate for it. Sad.
The 2nd Party needs to get its ‘nads outa the lockbox and sally forth or be forever chattel.
In case you haven't noticed, Team Obama has been giving themselves public circle jerks over their micro-target-market "flash mob" messaging stole crucial numbers of nominally-pro-Romney-but-very-low-information-voters ("life of Julia" and Sandra Fluck and "binders of women" as well as radio ads broadcast in Dothan Alabama); so subtle that even the Rove SUPER_DUPER_PACTM didn't even have a *guess* as to what the Obama folks were doing; and the complete once-in-a-lifetime Mongolian Flustered Cluck that was Narwhal.
And yet you STILL maintain that following the GOP-e is the only way to avoid electoral disaster.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.