Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

IT'S OFFICIAL: HOUSE PASSES FISCAL CLIFF BILL
Business Insider ^ | 01/01/2013 | Joe Weisenthal and Grace Wyler

Posted on 01/01/2013 8:07:58 PM PST by SeekAndFind

After a long day of fiscal cliff chaos, the House will finally hold a vote tonight on the fiscal cliff bill passed by the Senate early Tuesday.

The decision to hold an up-down vote virtually guarantees passage of the bill, which would extend the Bush tax hikes for households earning under $450,000. that the bill will pass.

For most of the day, House Republicans have said that they could not support the bill without spending cuts, but by Tuesday night it was clear that GOP leaders could not come up with the votes to pass an amendment to add those cuts.

The House Rules Committee announced that there will be a vote on the unamended Senate bill in the 9 p.m. hour. Check out all of the days developments below.

(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: bukakitheater; congress; fakegovernment; fiscalcliff; fiscalcliffdeal; fiscalcliffvote; fixed; foolpublic; nochoice; oneparty; theater
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-240 next last
To: Artcore

I stopped being a Republican when Bush Sr. signed his name to a budget that was $400 billion in the red. Things have only gotten worse since then.


201 posted on 01/01/2013 10:36:20 PM PST by Hoodat ("As for God, His way is perfect" - Psalm 18:30)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

seriously, was there ever any doubt the GOP was going to completely cave?


202 posted on 01/01/2013 10:36:59 PM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
They really are like the democrats. Higher taxes and wasteful spending. This was already set. They don't care about the people; just their power. Hopefully, many of them will be fired the next election.
203 posted on 01/01/2013 11:00:32 PM PST by lock-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Persevero

His son and an aid said it. From two sources, the statement has to come with his knowledge.

I agree with you though. He wanted it bad. He won’t get another chance though, after the alleged indifference about running. I bet a LOT of people wish they had their donations back.


204 posted on 01/01/2013 11:09:15 PM PST by Psalm 144 (Capitol to the districts: "May the odds be ever in your favor.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

I can see a day when these people have to seek asylum in foreign countries. Not likely, but becoming more likely all the time.


205 posted on 01/01/2013 11:10:47 PM PST by Psalm 144 (Capitol to the districts: "May the odds be ever in your favor.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Kim Kardashian in pregnant....so who cares...(Sarc)


206 posted on 01/01/2013 11:18:35 PM PST by Nextrush (PRESIDENT SARAH PALIN IS MY DREAM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; Army Air Corps; Lancey Howard; Pining_4_TX; what's up; PennsylvaniaMom; rbmillerjr; ...

It is not easy to understand what 16 trillion dollars is.

Maybe this will help.

The speed of light is about 186,282 miles per second.

There are 31,622,400 seconds in a year.

Thus in one year, at the speed of light, the distance covered is 5,890,683,916,800 miles.

5.89 trillion miles.

SO at the speed of light, the 16 trillion dollar debt is equal to 2.715 light years... at $1 per mile, that is.

That will get you more than halfway to the nearest star, as far as that goes.

OR - if we consider cubic feet - easier to visualize than the speed of light perhaps.

16 trillion cubic feet is equal to...
108.7 cubic miles.
1 square mile in area, 108.7 miles high.

16 trillion is a large number indeed.

Lets not even talk about 58 trillion when including SS and other similar debt items.

:-/


207 posted on 01/01/2013 11:24:39 PM PST by muffaletaman (IMNSHO - I MIGHT be wrong, but I doubt it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: entropy12
Great news for middle class!

How so? How is it great news for the middle class to see their children enslaved paying other peoples' bills? How is it great news for the middle class to see a mountain of debt piled upon their backs? Perhaps you define "great news" as "whatever is good for the GOP establishment".

208 posted on 01/01/2013 11:28:00 PM PST by Redcloak (Winter is coming.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Nextrush

I’d say not only Rand but Michele Bachmann as well.


209 posted on 01/01/2013 11:45:43 PM PST by cableguymn (The founding fathers would be shooting by now..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: lonevoice

I already have the T-Shirt.

“Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups!”

Now... I am starting to wonder if the morons are the dumb ones. They get all the goodies while we bust our ass to pay for them.


210 posted on 01/01/2013 11:49:32 PM PST by cableguymn (The founding fathers would be shooting by now..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 144

Take a look at what you have asked us to believe.

We’re to accept that Mitt wanted to win...badly. You said it yourself. But at the same time we’re to accept that he sanctioned a son and an aide to go out and say that he never wanted to run in the first place. You said that, too.

The two things don’t go together.

I gave the son’s utterances no credence whatsoever. Anybody can SAY anything, even a family member. His sons are not so articulate in my estimation. The son might have meant something that he wasn’t articulate enough to explain. Maybe he meant his father wasn’t thrilled with all the RUNNING for President he’s been doing. Maybe he didn’t mean that, once having decided to run even though not liking to run, he didn’t care if he won or not. But was incapable of making the point.

About an aide having said it, I have no information on that. It’s news to me. What kind of an aide would work for someone who’s running for President every four years but who knows the candidate really doesn’t want to win? The whole thing is a crock, I believe. Makes no sense.


211 posted on 01/01/2013 11:51:12 PM PST by txrangerette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: cableguymn

The libertarians like Paul and religious conservatives like Bachmann may have to end up together in some new political arrangement in the years ahead.

Its not easy to build a new party from scratch, but Americans can do anything they want to when they put their minds to it.

Our great nation “conceived in liberty” was founded by religious people and not so religious people who worked together.

United We Stand or divided we will fall.


212 posted on 01/01/2013 11:51:25 PM PST by Nextrush (PRESIDENT SARAH PALIN IS MY DREAM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: Nextrush

Libertarians have gone off the deep end for same-sex marriage. They call it “marriage equality”. Talk about an alliance from h***, if religious conservatives ever feel they have no choice but to make common cause with Libertarians. They Ls are also for drug legalization and they are NOT pro-Israel. Religious conservatives hold the opposite views.


213 posted on 01/01/2013 11:56:27 PM PST by txrangerette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: Nextrush

I could think of no better to lead us than the two of them.

Side though on all of this.

The house passed a senate tax bill.

Anyone see a constitutional problem with this?

Maybe I am all alone and wrong. But don’t tax bills have to start in the house?


214 posted on 01/01/2013 11:56:38 PM PST by cableguymn (The founding fathers would be shooting by now..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker
Well, it turns out the link I posted earlier wasn't to the final vote on the bill. The final roll call has been posted now.
215 posted on 01/02/2013 12:09:14 AM PST by radu (May God watch over our troops and keep them safe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: radu

-— NOT VOTING 8 -—

Buerkle
Burton (IN)
Graves (MO)
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Paul <-————————————— That is not Rand is it?
Stark
Woolsey


216 posted on 01/02/2013 12:32:39 AM PST by cableguymn (The founding fathers would be shooting by now..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: radu

Opps.. can’t be Rand.

It’s is Dad.. WTF!


217 posted on 01/02/2013 12:33:22 AM PST by cableguymn (The founding fathers would be shooting by now..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

I hope the divisions aren’t that deep, but I do think anyone who really wants a free society that protects free speech for religious people and the right to own firearms should join together.

The balancing of our budget and stopping the debt from rising should be something that will unite the two groups together and the number one issue.

Pot is bad like booze, but alcohol is legal so I guess the libertarians may have a point in their legalization arguments.

A new Liberty Party may have to leave that issue up to the states to decide.

When the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer last spoke to Christians about their involvement in political issues in the early 1980’s I watched him say to us in the room that “free speech” was what Christians needed in the public arena.

I don’t know if any fight over gay marriage can be won when opposition to it like that expressed by Dan Cathy of Chick Fil-A results in an intimidating firestorm reminisicent of brownshirts at Jewish shops in 1930’s Germany.

The Libertarians if they are real ones will support free speech and that should be a cornerstone of a new third party, absolute support for free speech about social issues like gay marriage without intimidation or fear.


218 posted on 01/02/2013 12:38:30 AM PST by Nextrush (PRESIDENT SARAH PALIN IS MY DREAM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: cableguymn

Yep. It’s Ron. Rand is a senator.
Rand voted against the bill in the Senate.

Don’t know why those who didn’t vote went that route. Didn’t want to vote on a bill they hadn’t read or just didn’t want to commit either way, worried about re-election next time around?


219 posted on 01/02/2013 12:52:29 AM PST by radu (May God watch over our troops and keep them safe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: radu

Re-election is not a worry of Ron’s. he’s calling it quits isn’t he?

And a no vote would have helped him.

The other 7, I don’t know. I look forward to their explanations.


220 posted on 01/02/2013 1:02:35 AM PST by cableguymn (The founding fathers would be shooting by now..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-240 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson