News Flash....Wealth isn't a Civil Right

[Plane]

  Are you sure this will work?The Democrats  are adept at doing stuff and blaming results on someone elese.

[BT]

It's got a good chance. Either the Senate passes it without modification or it has to go back to the house for reconciliation.

The house sits on it while the cuts are hammered out.

The revenue increase is in place waiting on the do nothing dems.

[sirs]

The problem is currently it already is a do nothing Dems, with all the bills passed by the House and sitting on Senator Reid's desk, yet the ongoing portrait, with the help of the MSM, presents it as being a do nothing GOP "congress".  Not to mention the political ammo the Dems would have at excoriating the GOP for daring to not support an extension of their own Bush cuts for the poor with Obama getting to sit in the bleachers, laughing all the way

Spending Cuts 1st, then we can entertain tax cuts for "everyone"

[Xavier_Onassis]

Naaaa, let's see the spending cuts 1st, then we'll entertain "revenue increases".  I'm of the mindset ot fix the problem, not keep punting it to the next generation.  Revenue is not the problem
===================================================
This will never happen. The Republicans will catch the blame for defending the mega rich.

I see a three person race between Obama, Romney and Paul as a Libertarian, and Obama will be triumphant.

[sirs]

Naaaa, let's see the spending cuts 1st, then we'll entertain "revenue increases".  I'm of the mindset ot fix the problem, not keep punting it to the next generation.  Revenue is not the problem
===================================================
This will never happen. The Republicans will catch the blame for defending the mega rich.

Of course, that'll be the spin.  Has been since Obama and the left launched into this class warfare garbage

I see a three person race between Obama, Romney and Paul as a Libertarian, and Obama will be triumphant.

You wish

[BT]

So you are in favor of giving Obama the right to claim the GOP as obstructionists and being correct in that assertion?

Interesting tactic. Stupid, but quite interesting.

[sirs]

Stupid would be accepting your premise, since its 180degrees from what I just referenced   

[BT]

Actually it isn't, you are advocating that the GOP not address the revenue issue at this time. Obama can then claim that his jobs program is being stopped by the GOP because they will not pass his millionaires tax.

What part of Obama's statement would be incorrect?

[sirs]

Actually it is, because I'm advocating the GOP address the problem, (which they have been) and not play the political game of who and how much to raises taxes on, since its not a revenue problem, not to mention that the MSM is going to paint them as the obstructionists regardless of what they do

[BT]

Then we just disagree.

Obama can claim the GOP is responsible for his JOBs program not moving forward and he would be correct, since he wants to pay for it with the millionaires tax and the GOP won't give him that.

And it is a revenue problem when 40 cents of every dollar spent is borrowed. It is a revenue and spending problem. And 10 year plans simply will not fix the problem.

[BT]

Why We Are In Political Gridlock: The Private Sector Is Dying

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/21/why-we-are-in-political-gridlock-the-private-sector-is-dying/

[BSB]

If you raise taxes, just for example, by 1 1/2% on the working poor, and near poor, and by 3% on the top 1%, who gets hit harder? The working poor, and near poor, that's who, even though their tax increase is half that of the wealthiest Americans. Obviously ever tiny little bit is going to effect the poor more.

This country isn't about, I got mine fuck you. And if you think it is you're dead wrong. This country is about letting people flourish to the best of their abilities, and good fortune. And it is also about sacrificing according to your abilities, and good fortune. Again, using the prior example, a 1 1/2% tax hike on the working poor, and near poor, is a sacrifice according to their abilities, and good fortune, just as great as a 3% hike on the ablest, and most fortunate, among us.

The idea is to keep the pump going. If you're getting more water from the pump, you're nuts if you don't oil it a little more than those who aren't.

If you don't like that, move to North Korea where they treat everyone the same, except for high ranking commies, and no one has anything.


BSB

[BT]

If you let the Bush tax cuts expire then in effect you have the Clinton tax rates.
I would like the dems to explain how that would be disadvantageous to the poor

I would also like the dems to explain how when they were talking about the Bush tax cuts only the rich benefited and the poor got a negligible cut,  reverting back to the Clinton rates certainly would not be onerous.

[sirs]

Obama's going to claim the GOP are obstructionists, no matter what, and the MSM is going parrot it.  You're the one that started off about not playing games, and this whole notion about taxes is just a game.  It does practically squat to address the deficit, reinforces the class warfare garbage, which then gets punctuated by the Dems pulling a last minute provision to exclude "the poor" from any tax increase, which puts the GOP in a no win corner.

It's a SPENDING problem, 1st, formost, and almost.  We deal with that 1st, which the GOP has tried to do.  The GOP has passed countless legislation to deal with jobs & job creation, that sit on the Senate Dems table, but the GOP still gets branded the obstructionist

[BT]

How does letting the largest tax cut in history expire not put a dent in the deficit?

How does letting the cuts expire reverting to the Clinton tax rate generate class warfare unless the dems are saying the Clinton rates punished the poor?

Inquiring mind want to know.