Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: The Repugnant Party is raising taxes on 160 Million Hard Working Americans!!! And Guess who BLINKED---The Repugs CAVE!!! ----WE WON!!! ----We are WINNING!!!

Posted 11 years ago on Dec. 21, 2011, 6:24 p.m. EST by Puzzlin (2898)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Republicans, who fight tooth and nail to lower taxes on the wealthy, aka the 1 percent, showed no problems with voting to raise taxes on everyone else.

“Republicans showed yet again that they are more interested in passing tax cuts for millionaires than tax cuts for the middle class. Senate Republicans rejected two proposals to give middle-class families a tax cut. And House Republican leaders had to entice their members into supporting their proposal by weighing it down with a laundry list of policies whose sole purpose are scoring points against President Obama.

“House Republicans’ bill is a partisan joke that has no chance of passing the Senate, but middle-class families facing a thousand-dollar tax hike on January 1st are not laughing. Instead of playing political games, Congress should work to find common ground. In the days ahead, I intend to do exactly that.”

OK, trolls, try to wiggle your way out of this. And, by the way, Trolls, this why there is a OWS movement. Get it NOW. Probably not, but be my guest, dig your collective holes deeper and deeper!!!

UPDATE: An increase in the payroll tax would have hit the wallets of 160 million U.S. workers at a time of high unemployment and deep voter dissatisfaction with the tax system, the shape of the economy and the way Congress conducts itself.

Analysts had warned that failing to renew the tax cut could jeopardize the economic recovery, perhaps even risking another recession.

House Speaker John Boehner, the top U.S. Republican, yielded to pressure from Democrats and his party and agreed, with minor changes, to allow a vote on the extension bill passed by the Senate last week with bipartisan support.

My opinion for this thread----------------> The Repugnant Party decided to live to fight another day. What a wise choice to survive. The trolls here though disagree they wanted to see the Repugnant Party self destruct itself : )



Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by ronniepaul2012 (214) 11 years ago

The expiring 2% cut on SOCIAL SECURITY withholding was stupid to begin with. The plan is hemorraging money as it is. If they want to cut taxes for hard working Americans, it should be the INCOME TAX, not SS.

Akso, the plan that was agreed to was only a 2 month kick the can. Can't the Congress talk in 1 year periods? I notice lately every CUT they can agree to on the federal budget is spoken of in TEN YEAR amounts so they sound like some real progress!

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

Ronnie Paulie 2012:

SO, were the Bush TAX CUTS for the RICH funded?

Just answer the question and back it up with facts and sources.

Go for It!

[-] 0 points by mee44 (71) 11 years ago

A woman stopped by, unannounced, at her son's house. She knocked on the door then immediately walked in. She was shocked to see her daughter-in-law lying on the couch, totally naked. Soft music was playing, and the aroma of perfume filled the room.

"What are you doing?!" she asked.

"I'm waiting for Mike to come home from work," the daughter-in- law answered.

"But you're naked!" the mother-in-law exclaimed.

"This is my love dress," the daughter-in-law explained.

"Love dress? But you're naked!"

"Mike loves me and wants me to wear this dress," she explained." It excites him to no end. Every time he sees me in this dress, he instantly becomes romantic and ravages me for hours on end. He can't get enough of me"

The mother-in-law left.

When she got home, she undressed, showered, put on her best perfume, dimmed the lights, put on a romantic CD, and lay on the couch, waiting for her husband to arrive.

Finally, her husband came home. He walked in and saw her lying there so provocatively. "What are you doing?" he asked.

"This is my love dress," she whispered sensually.

"Needs ironing," he said. "What's for dinner?

He never heard the gunshot.

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 11 years ago


[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 11 years ago

from the effective date of the Bush43 tax rates: Jan 01, 2003....until the democrats took over the congress in Jan 07, federal revenues rose by 65%, the yearly deficit dropped by 18%, and 8+ million jobs were created......all of this DESPITE 2 wars..

they more than paid for themselves....

Sources: US Statistical Abstract ;Section 9. Federal Government Finances and Employment

US Treasury...www.treasurydirect.gov

Bureau of labor statistics....http://www.bls.gov/schedule/archives/empsit_nr.htm#2010

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

Suggestion or speculation by Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist that these tax cuts effectively "paid for themselves" has been met with refutations to the contrary from the CBPP, the U.S. Treasury Department and the CBO. Economist Paul Krugman wrote in 2007: "Supply side doctrine, which claimed without evidence that tax cuts would pay for themselves, never got any traction in the world of professional economic research, even among conservatives." Since 2001, federal income tax revenues have remained below the 30-year average of 8.4% of GDP with the exception of 2007, and did not regain their 2000 dollar peak until 2006 (see chart at right).

Some policy analysts and non-profit groups such as OMBWatch, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and the Tax Policy Center have attributed much of the rise in income inequality to the Bush administration's tax policy. In February 2007, President Bush addressed the rise of inequality for the first time, saying "The reason is clear: We have an economy that increasingly rewards education and skills because of that education."

Critics state that the tax cuts, including those given to middle and lower income households, failed to spur growth. The cuts also increased the budget deficit, shifted the tax burden from the rich to the middle and working classes, and further increased already high levels of income inequality. Economists Peter Orszag and William Gale described the Bush tax cuts as reverse government redistribution of wealth, "[shifting] the burden of taxation away from upper-income, capital-owning households and toward the wage-earning households of the lower and middle classes."

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 11 years ago

Yay!...another fool who thinks news stories and media opinions are fact, and who, obviously doesn't fact check against official data...

you and Modestcapitalist should form a club....The useful idiots and drones of the Idiocracy....(sponsored by Carl's Jr)

[-] 0 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

And, we should trust you to tell us the truth with made up facts.


[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 11 years ago

all my assertions can be verified on the official government sites I listed in my post.....

[-] 2 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 11 years ago

Yeah? Thats not what Arther Laffer said. Thats not what I say either. Specifically, your claim about the yearly deficit is outrageous partisan puppet Bush-boy hogwash. And the tax cuts paying for themselves? HA. Ever hear of a lag? Do you know what that means? How about inflation, the cost of living, foreclosure, consumer debt, and national debt? Any change from January of '03' to January of '07'?

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 11 years ago

Actual deficit fy2004 595 billion

Actual deficit fy2007 500 billion

change 95 billion

percentage drop = 19%

[-] 2 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 11 years ago

Wrong time frame. Fiscal Years '03' - '06' Try 9%. Then answer my previous questions. While you're at it, tell me how in holy hell our screwed up leaders expect to fund Bush's multi-trillion dollar favor to the pharmaceutical industry.

Thats right. It still isn't paid for. Not to mention the real cost of the Iraq war which will lag on for years to come.

The deficit in '01' was under 145 billion. '02' 409 billion. '03' 589 billion.

So much for those cherry picked deficit reductions.

Don't let this scammersworld guy trick you. He pulls this crap all the time.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 11 years ago

yeah, genius...we had a recession in 01-03...remember the enron/dot-com crisis?

and it was FY04-07....fiscal years begin in october of the previous year...FY04 began in oct of 03, and FY07 began in Oct of 06 (drafted by the Republican congress)

the actual numbers (via the US treasury) were 133, 420, 554 for 2001-2003

with declining deficits, (well...until the first budget year of the Democrat congress, FY08, when the "actual" deficit blew up to 1 trillion), increasing revenue, and stability in the markets...if the trend would have continued the deficits would have eventually reached balance....like they did under Republican Congresses in the 90's.

there is no cherry picking...accept by you, to skew the numbers...I used the budget immediately succeeding the tax cut, right through the last budget drafted by republicans...you chose to cut it off before the high to give your assertion false credibility.....I invite anyone to check the sites I listed, for themselves....it's all there in black and white.

What isn't paid for is the massive budgetary increases and stimulus spending of the Democrat Congresses, and Obama, which have added 6.06 Trillion to the debt, in less than 5 years....40% of the total debt....

And, my foolish friend Modestcapitalist never checks official figures...he thinks that news stories, partisan websites, and blogs, are the places where one finds the "facts"....he makes assertions with no citations or sourcing, we are just to take him at his word, or surrender our thinking to the those he claims to be authorities....

[-] 2 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 11 years ago

Whenever you and I debate anything, you keep assuming that I don't realize the fundamentals. I've proven that I do every single time. Of course, fiscal years begin the prior October. But as you said, the cuts took effect in January of '03'. Not January of '04'. Therefore, the fiscal year to start from is that of '03'.

Typing of fundamentals, you should know that by definition, there was no recession. The period was almost entirely one of slower growth. But without two quarters of negative growth, there was, by definition, no recession.

With regard to your deficit figures for '01' - '03'. Do they include payments made on interest? Either way, they prove my point. In fact, according to your figure for fiscal year '03', the deficit reduction for the time frame you referred to in your first post and then tried to change (Because you must have realized that you screwed up after my response.), was more like 4%. Not 19%. Not that I think deficits alone show fiscal irresponsibility. They don't necessarily. Its nowhere near that simple. But you implied that it was in a shallow attempt to defend Bush. I responded with a wider, more relevant context.

No. Those deficits would not have reached balance. No way in hell. Not with the long term cost of the Iraq war, that multi-trillion dollar pharmaceutical favor, those outrageous tax breaks, continued subsidies, and a shrinking middle class. No way in holy hell.

Yes. You are cherry picking. I also invite the others here to check the sites you listed (I've been there before but I can't on this computer with this connection.). When they do, they will see that your specific claim "Jan 01, 2003....until the democrats took over the congress in Jan 07, federal revenues rose by 65%, the yearly deficit dropped by 18%" was dead wrong. At least with regard to those deficit reductions. DEAD WRONG. In fact, we didn't even cover the average deficit for those years. If we did, it would debunk your claim even further.

Damn right the budgetary increases havn't been paid for. But its nowhere near as simple as blaming Obama and the democrats. Or Bush and the republicans for that matter. Nowhere fucking near it. The underling cause of that financial crisis was brewing for many years. Not months. The ground was tilled in the '70's, the fertilizer added in the '80's, the seeds planted in the '90's, and the water in the '00's.

Bullshit. I have quoted dozens of official figures here, allover the web, and on talk radio. My essays are based almost entirely on official figures. But as I said before, the 'official' figures don't cover or explain everything. In which case, you have to consider and scrutinize various sources and/or think for yourself.

It was this ability to consider and scrutinize various sources and think for myself that had me on the air and online in late '05' predicting this socio-economic crisis. I've been all over it ever since. I posted 20,000 warnings from '05' to '08' alone. Yes. One at a time. Thats how sure I was that we were entering a period of socio-economic instability from which we would never recover.

I have another challenge for you. I will post a reference to my earliest entry (that I can still find after 6 years) in which I predict this socio-economic crisis and the coming global depression. All I expect in return is for you to do the same. Surely, with your 'official' figures and experience you must have seen this coming at least by '05' when I did.

Whats it gonna be? Do you accept?

Thats what I thought.

[-] 1 points by BillS (1) 11 years ago

Modest who are you? A student teacher or investor or something else?

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 11 years ago

as usual...you have provided no sources or citations...and your redefinition of recession is cute...but, once again you are wrong.....

My deficit figures are "actual" yearly deficits calculated by simply subtracting the actual debt figures during each fiscal year, they include ALL federal spending, on budget and off.....You can find that info at the treasury website, listed in my original comment...

the figures I posted will stand up to any inquiry, so..unless you can cite specific official documents, or data...I think we're done here.....

Oh, and Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukah, or Happy Holiday...whichever applies......

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 11 years ago

I didn't redefine anything. In fact, I made the same mistake back in '06'. Shortly after, I learned that a recession occurs when you have two consecutive quarters of negative growth. I'm not really comfortable with that definition. Afterall, if your gums recede, they don't grow back. They remain receded. Anything less than prime gum is a recession. Until I learned the true definition of an economic recession, I always assumed that anything less than absolute stability or growth would be considered a recession. Not true. Its not a recession unless you have two consecutive quarters of negative growth.

I don't have any reason to doubt the deficit figures you posted. They are relatively close to mine. Like I said, I can't confirm your sources on this computer. They just won't load. I only asked if they included payments made on interest. My next question would have been if they included off budget spending. Either way, my dispute was not over a few billion in deficit spending. My dispute was and is with your decision to make one statement with regard to a specific time frame (Jan '03' - Jan '07'). and back it up with figures from another (FY '04' - FY '07'). Maybe it was an honest mistake. Your math does work (close enough) for FY '04' - FY '07'. But that wasn't the time frame you referred to when you initially stated that deficit spending was reduced by 18%. The reduction for FY '03' - FY '06' was only around 4%. Thats a big difference. That was and is my dispute. Not with the actual deficit figures you posted in your last reply. Like I said, I have no reason to doubt them.

You never did answer all my other questions.

If I thought for one second that your holiday wishes were sincere, I would return them.

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 11 years ago

How did you get modded up so high? You can't sport a ron paul moniker and Complaing about tax cuts AT ALL. Period. Thems the rules. Tax cuts for regular folks=good. Period. Tax cut for wage-earners bad idea? Absurd. I'll hound your ass up and down these fora with a name like that linked to a view like that.

Are there better tax cut plans for working folks? Yes. But all cuts, whether on taxes or spending are good. Ron Paul is the only candidate with a viable plan to save SS and the rest of the safety net programs, and it doesn't entail tweaking the income tax. I'm with him on abolishing it completely and replacing it with.. . .NOTHING. Supposedly only about half pay it, and it only funds 1/3 of the budget. It is singlehandedly responsible for more unhealthy and dangerous distortions to the economy that everyone suffers except the 1%.


[-] 1 points by ronniepaul2012 (214) 11 years ago

Wow!!! I dunno and am shocked! My comments are usually disliked just because of my screen name. Maybe people actually read my post. Hard to disagree with what I said. RP likes tax cuts, enough of them and the rate WILL go to 0. :-)

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 11 years ago

I just popped you up another notch, maybe you'll hit the leaderboard! lol. I know, probably fat chance.

[-] 2 points by MonetizingDiscontent (1257) 11 years ago

an irrelevant extention for 2 months... I think it just creates time for negotiations to continue, and a -victory- for neither "side" (You have to love the red-shirt/blue-shirt superbowl ~Team~ mentality though, because my bet is that the -PeopleTeam- lose, either way)

that's only my unbiased detached opinion though.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

Apparently you have no skin in this game. You can stand on the sidelines. We'll take care of it.

[-] 2 points by JPB950 (2254) 11 years ago

Oh good! Social Security, which is headed for bankruptcy will not get needed money pumped into it. Considering what we as a nation want to spend, we need more taxes. Eliminate loopholes and deductions, and raise taxes to cover what we spend.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

Try to read the rest of this thread and you will have your answer. Smarten Up!

(SS is good until 2036, then it begins a reduction if it isn;t funded.)

[-] 2 points by JPB950 (2254) 11 years ago

You don't understand my point, all any of them care about is reelection and getting power for their political party. We've been sucked into thinking we can get free stuff from the government. More is going out then is coming in to Social Security, there isn't actually any surplus sitting around in a safe somewhere, the government has been borrowing it for decades.

We're running a deficit of $1.2 to 1.3 trillion this year. I'm not too thrilled that any politician wants to postpone reality. All the taxes and fees we pay need to be reviewed and made sufficient to cover what we want our government to do.

Getting all worked up over Obama beating Boehner, Boehner beating Reid, Boehner caving, is allowing all of these corrupt clowns to keep playing politics, put off the inevitable, and make that day more expensive for all of us.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

SO, you and your tea party friends want to "fix" SS. No thanks, We'll pass. We're not going to gut it and then declare it dead later. No thanks, keep hands off.

[-] 2 points by JPB950 (2254) 11 years ago

I'm not connected with the tea party. I believe they want lower taxes. I'm for reviewing what we spend, as a nation, doing as much as we can and paying for it. Get politicians to sit down and hammer out a plan to balance the budget and begin paying off what we owe. I'd like to see an informed electorate make informed decisions.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

This is why we are here this is why you are needed.


Share, circulate, educate, inspire.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 11 years ago

LOL ! Yes, the Democrats passed a tax cut the Republicans opposed. Go figure. Since when to Democrats cut taxes, and since when do Republicans oppose them?

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

It was a turn-around for sure and the Republicans, as long as they held out, were in extreme "lemming" mode. Their brand was sinking fast. They stopped the hemorrhaging but they have definitely been weakened over this. They really stepped in it this time and essentially they have Tea Party wing of their party to thank for it. It seems the angry Tea Party wants to do these with no care for the consequences. After 2012, I think that party will be muzzled.

Thanks for the post! Nice to see around these parts!

[-] 1 points by GordonGekko (8) 11 years ago

SS is not a tax. It is actually an employee benefit for every dollar an employee put in the employer must match 1 for 1. The big winner with ss cuts is corporations and the big loser is the employee who will see a reduction in the benefit in the long run.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

The House GOP is coming under increasing fire from fellow Republicans in the Senate for the payroll tax standoff with Democrats – which many in the GOP see as a growing political debacle.

Multiple Senate GOP sources told CNN that frustration with their counterparts in the House is mounting.

"The House Republicans have painted themselves into a corner. They are on their own," a Senate GOP leadership aide told CNN.

"This is a lose – lose situation for us. They've let the Democrats get the messaging advantage and more specifically we've turned one of our key issues on its head. The Republicans look like they are the ones blocking tax relief," said the Senate GOP leadership aide, who also called it "inexcusable."

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

"House Speaker John Boehner said the Republican leadership's opposition to a two-month extension of the payroll tax cut passed by the Senate "may not have been politically the smartest thing in the world."

LoL ---- not the smartest thing, but hey look some posters here think it was.

So, what does that make them?


[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

Let's not miss the point that the 1%s want repugs in office far more than the rich. The dems do not coddle the rich quite as much as the repugs. The repugs have made it one of their main objectives as they spread the myth that the rich create jobs when the rest of us know it's demand that creates jobs.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

"Bowing under intense pressure from members of their own party to end the politically damaging impasse over a payroll tax holiday, House Republican leaders agreed Thursday to accept a temporary extension of the tax cut, beating a hasty retreat from a showdown that Republicans increasingly saw as a threat to their election opportunities next year."

"Under a deal reached between House and Senate leaders which Speaker John A. Boehner was presenting to the rank and file in an evening conference call House members would accept the two-month extension of a payroll tax holiday and unemployment benefits approved by the Senate last Saturday, while the Senate would appoint members of a House-Senate conference committee to negotiate legislation to extend both benefits through 2012."

[-] 1 points by Misfit138 (172) 11 years ago

Winning? This is such a bad idea to begin with, SSI is unsustainable in its current form and you champion cutting more from it? This "tax cut" actually helps the radical right in their ultimate goal of ending SSI. If a person makes $3000 a month, they get to keep an additional $60 a month. Is that worth losing what you have already contributed to an SSI fund that may not exist when you retire? Your partisan blinders keep you from seeing the big picture. No, this "tax cut" is anything but good for the people.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 11 years ago

A bunch of DEMOCRATS and REPUBLICANS supported the bailing out of a banking system that is stealing people's pensions and devaluing the US dollar. Including traitor Obama who has betrayed all of us who voted for him in 2008. No McCain Palin would not have been better. Yes Newt Gingrich sucks. But Dennis Kucinich should have been the man we supported in 2008.

Obama is a fraud!!!

Wall Street's takeover of the Obama administration is now complete. "The mega-banks and their corporate allies control every economic policy position of consequence. Mr. Obama has moved rapidly since the November debacle to install business people where it counts most. Mr.William Daley from JP Morgan Chase as White House Chief of Staff. Mr. Gene Sperling from the Goldman Sachs payroll to be director of the National Economic Council. Eileen Rominger from Goldman Sachs named director of the SEC's Investment Management division. Even the National Security Advisor, Thomas Donilon, was executive vice president for law and policy at the disgraced Fannie Mae after serving as a corporate lobbyist with O'Melveny & Roberts. The keystone of the business friendly team was put in place on Friday. General Electric Chairman and CEO Jeffrey Immelt will serve as chair of the president's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness."


He's bombed more countries than Bush. Countries like Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan... etc

He extended the Bush tax cuts.


He never actually closed guantanamo bay.


He lied about ending the wars in Iraq and the current withdrawal was scheduled by the Bush administration. And there is a billion dollar military base in Iraq and I guarantee you that it aint empty.



He supported the bailouts of banking institutions that are extracting wealth from our country and stealing people's pensions and homes. The bailout money was used by the federal reserve to create 7.7 trillion dollars out of thin air, and Obama has yet to do anything about it.


He also supported the patriot act, which essentially deletes the 4th amendment.


He's started unconstitutional acts of war against Libya, which he spoke out against when Bush did that to Iraq.


Obama signed for the indefinite detention of US citizens without trial into law under provisions of the NDAA and "designates the world as the battlefield and that includes the homeland." -quote senator Lindsey Graham who supported the bill and argued in it's favor.



"The killing of al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden in Pakistan and the threats posed by al Qaeda cells in Yemen and Africa underscore the evolving and continuing nature of the terrorist threat to the United States. The Conference Report ensures the United States will have the ability to meet this threat and neutralize terrorists from these groups and conduct effective interrogations."


List of terrorist organizations our country could start war with and the countries they're in.


"This [the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011] designates the WORLD as the battlefield... and that includes the homeland."


Next stop Africa and Yemen!!! Maybe Iran or Syria next? Fulfill that cold war with some Operation Northwoods and go to war with Russia? Who knows? It's the government. It's a threat to national security to tell you the truth all the time.Maybe China a few years from now?




“We suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity.” -Cass R Sunstein, Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration.

Oh and don't forget about this Hour long presentation in congress about Al Qaeda members being the Libyan rebels, as well as extremists, rapists, and murderers.


In case any of you don't like the first video because it's a republican here is super Liberal Dennis Kucinich railing against Al Qaeda in the rebels as well.


And here is an article on the Libyan rebel leader admitting to having a bunch of Al Qaeda members in his "rebellion" which is actually just terrorism.


And to all the remaining Obama fans, please don't try and accuse me of being in favor of Newt Gingrich or tell me some bullshit about McCain Palin. My criticism for Obama is simply based around facts and in no way means I support a GOP agenda. Obama is a fraud and so is Newt Gingrich.

[-] 0 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

DID you vote for BUSH Trevor???

(It shows.....)

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 11 years ago

I couldn't vote during the Bush era because i wasn't 18, but if you read anything I had to say in this post you'd know I do not support the GOP in anyway nor their corrupt members. I'm just not dumb enough to continue supporting an obvious fraud just because I'm a liberal and he's a democrat. Being a democrat doesn't make a person infallible. The facts speak that Obama is a fraud. Dennis Kucinich should have been president in 2008. It's kind of sad that your response to this obvious list of corruption is "did you vote for Bush?" That's just ignorant.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

Lets not get carried away just yet. It's only a two month extension, and in two months time the Canadian Texas Oil pipe line will be back for further consideration. So while the pubs "might" have blinked, the game is far from over. Stay involved, keep working for change, take positive action as you can and don't drop your guard.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

We need to stop the pipeline!!!

[-] 1 points by 53PercentDude (29) 11 years ago

Why do you feel that we need to stop the pipeline? Why not use domestic resources being produced in Canada and the United States as opposed to being dependent on middle eastern and Venezuelan oil? The pipeline will serve to improve the Canadian and US economies and will create thousands of jobs that we desperately need. It is truly a "shovel ready" project that will be funded by private capital as opposed to being tax payer funded. I suspect that your possible retort would be that we need to create "green energy" resources as opposed to being dependent, at all, on oil to which I would agree. The pure fact is that green technology hasn't evolved enough to meet our present energy needs. Like it or not, we are still dependent on oil to power our vehicles and to generate the electrical power that we need. Even if we all drove Chevy Volts, the electrical energy to power those vehicles has to come from somewhere and it isn't wind or solar power, at least not yet! The pipeline would serve to stop a few supertankers from bringing oil to us from countries that don't even like us very well and would also serve to stop the flow of US dollars to Saudi sheiks and to Hugo Chavez, therefore I'm totally in favor of constructing the pipeline because in doing so we are helping Canadian and US citizens by putting them to work and by keeping US dollars and Loonies here at home.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago


Next opportunity you have to sign a petition regarding either the tax break or for the pipeline itself. If there is a message section on the petition form, use it to tell them exactly what a poor decision it would be to allow that pipeline. No riders on the tax break for the pipeline.

[-] 0 points by richardkentgates (3269) 11 years ago

private messaging me with your bullshit. say it out in the open bitch. you wana stalk somebody, do it here.

[-] 1 points by fucorporatemedia (451) 11 years ago

It is not a win, they are underfunding social security so that they can blame the Dems for the lack of money in the trust fund.

They have been stealing from the Social Security trust fund to pay for income tax cuts and wars, now they are taking more out. Reagan increased FICA taxes to cover the boomers, so much so there was so much money the politicians couldn't keep their hands off of it.

Now they don't want to pay it back, so they make up this bullshit so they can blame the Democrats when they 'have to' cut social security in the future.

They need to raise revenue by raising tax on the wealthy and corporations. They need to get some of the money back from the hoarders. Where did all the money go? When everyone lost money, someone else got it. That is where we need to get the revenue back from.

This whole thing is a dog and pony show, stupid distraction while they continue the assault on our Bill of Rights. And it is a two month extension, so they can start the whole BS over again in the new year.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23740) 11 years ago

Look for a big fight ahead over the Keystone Pipeline. Evidently, and this isn't well known, Grover Norquist, is a major lobbyist for the pipeline. Here are some links that I found:




[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

Thanks for the links and heads up. I'm ready to jump in. It needs to be stopped period!

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23740) 11 years ago

Post it Puzzlin. You're doing a great job of outing a lot of stuff and this Norquist s.o.b. HAS TO GO!!!!

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

I appreciate your support. It helps. I try and as you probably sense, I have an undying passion for these causes. It's our freaking world we live. I just decide to stand up and be heard. I'm a lover of truth. It's my inspiration!

Thanks for asking!

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23740) 11 years ago

You're welcome. I admit I'm not into posting but this Norquist thing with the Pipeline is really bugging me. I feel passionate about all of this stuff too. I just cannot believe what is going on in this country. It is outrageous.

I found the link to the NY Times article:


So, these freaking Republicans care more about some stupid pledge they made to some rich guy than they do about their oath of office and their responsibility to their constituents. It's unreal.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

Thanks for that link, this excerpt is worth putting right here, for all to read:

Mr. Norquist says he is all about taxes, but he has a sideline of lobbying activities that don’t always show antitax purity. They include lobbying the State Department for the controversial Keystone XL pipeline and the Pentagon on spending proposals, and opposing Internet regulations designed to fight child pornography, according to Politico. He considers his lobbying activities to be small-government initiatives. In the past, a Senate report found that the Norquist group’s tax-exempt status was used to funnel some money for Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist who served three and a half years in prison for fraud and other crimes.

With his ability to bless or terrorize conservatives, Mr. Norquist enjoys access to and influence over the Republican leadership. So it’s good to see some former pledge takers realize that the only allegiance they owe is to their constituents, not to Grover Norquist.

Thanks beautifulworld, I'm with you on this one!

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23740) 11 years ago

Excellent quote. Thanks.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

No problem!

[-] 1 points by LiveAndLetLive (79) from Fort Lauderdale, FL 11 years ago

These same taxes fund the SS, and we all know its already broke! So extension or not the middle class is screwed no matter what....... what I don't like is the 2month extension idea, its like sweeping dust under the carpet. Its not that these tax cuts decide to expire all of a sudden, everybody saw it coming for years, if they couldn't find a solution now..... they never will!

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

It is not broke! Who told you that?

Don't give me your fact-free narrative on SS. We need to save the middle class not destroy it!

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

This occurs because because of the severe downturn in the economy. In better times the projections had us further out into the 2040s at which time SS will be underfunded, not bust. If nothing is done, the checks will be reduced but will still go out.

This brings the honest point here. SS is not going bust, it simply needs to be funded. We have to make important enough to fix it. Fund it. We just need to crank up the economy again (demand creates jobs) and this outlooks aren't so gloomy. Some just want Obama to fail even if it means destroying the economy in the process. So they constantly whine we're on the edge of disaster and lie about how the stimulus helped avert said disaster. Narrative. Repeat, Repeat, Repeat. And you too can be a true believer : )

[-] 1 points by LiveAndLetLive (79) from Fort Lauderdale, FL 11 years ago

"Social Security's will be exhaused by 2036"


just google it yourself, I'm from the same middle class too..... and that's what I meant when I said that we are screwed!

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

That doesn't sound much like "already broke!" as you said in your earlier post now does it?

Thanks for the research and clarity. I agree now you have it right. Good job. You have joined the truth seeking club. Welcome!


[-] 1 points by LiveAndLetLive (79) from Fort Lauderdale, FL 11 years ago

really Puzzlin? You ignored my main point and got stuck to something not so significant....... all I was trying to say that these tax cuts are a double sided sword and would hurt the middle class anyways. If it gives you any relief that SS would be broke after 20years and not now..... good for you, for me its still equally painful.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

Right the economy needs stimulus. Let's get people back to work and then we stop the deficit. The dems already did this under Clinton. Get off your SS kick.

Are you an Alarmist?

Tea Party Bagger?

[-] 1 points by LiveAndLetLive (79) from Fort Lauderdale, FL 11 years ago

fuck off douchebag! I've been trying to have a sensible conversation and all you've been doing is name calling...... go keep sweeping the dust under the carpet. That's the very same attitude that got us here in the first place with a 15 trillion debt. The president himself said that if we don't raise the debt ceiling and borrow more the seniors might not get their next SS check..... how the fuck is that being alarmist? And I give a shit about Republicans or Democrats...... I'm just a common man who sees things the way they are.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

Remember the last time, when we ran deficits under Reagan & Bush?

There were many alarmists just like you spouting off about looming disasters. I remember those times well. The democrats reduced the deficit and gave George Bush a surplus. And then he went off the rail almost immediately. Were you complaining, whining, and name calling back then, or were just waving your flag calling people like me unpatriotic?

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 11 years ago

not broke? Social Security and Medicare are nothing but a box full of IOU's from a government 15 trillion in debt....if that's not broke, what is?

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

Your an idiot! Run the post below mine here. Do read ok, comprehend? They are NOT broke!!! Clearly. It is a fact. The post below even has the links!

Your may be entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts!

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 11 years ago

where does the collected FICA tax go? do you know?

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

According to the Social Security Admin:

ANSWER: Social Security payroll taxes are collected under authority of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA). The payroll taxes are sometimes even called "FICA taxes." In the original 1935 law the benefit provisions were in Title II of the Act and the taxing provisions were in a separate title, Title VIII. As part of the 1939 Amendments, the Title VIII taxing provisions were taken out of the Social Security Act and placed in the Internal Revenue Code. Since it wouldn't make any sense to call this new section of the Internal Revenue Code "Title VIII," it was renamed the "Federal Insurance Contributions Act." So FICA is nothing more than the tax provisions of the Social Security Act, as they appear in the Internal Revenue Code.

Do you have a point?

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 11 years ago

yeah....that's not an answer to the question I asked.....

Where do the funds go after they are collected?

"I don't know" is an acceptable answer

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

The point please?

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 11 years ago

So.....you don't know?

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

Tic Tak Doo Doo. I win!

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 11 years ago

Clearly, you have no clue....... I'll educate you:

As a provision of the "Social Security Act of 1965" (the legislation that created medicare), FICA payroll taxes are transferred into the general treasury fund, without earmarks (meaning their purpose is not specified) and intra-government bonds are issued to the SSA for the surplus of collections over distribution (IOU's)...the "Trust Fund" consists entirely of these IOU's, when distributions exceed collections the SSA will be forced to submit these bonds to pay benefits..... Our current budget with the surpluses of FICA collections is running at about 1.6 trillion in deficit, and SS is nearing the tipping point.....when that occurs, SS will become a drain on the budget, increasing deficits and debt, this is only a few years away.

the basis for "solvency" is the ability for the government to redeem the bonds, which with our current deficits....the "reality" of ability to redeem them isn't as rosy a picture as it's claimed to be

the short version: SS is broke

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 11 years ago

funny how you never responded to this one..huh?

[-] 1 points by wellhungjury (296) 11 years ago

LIBS and GOP are wrong to use this as a partisan battlefield. However, the $1000 claim is only applied to those who are single and make $50,000. The actual raise is 2% against their income, where it was one year ago at 6.2%. Most people who make $30,000 to $40,000 will get this back in a refund at the end of the year, especially if they have dependents. Those who make less will get an Earned Income Tax Credit, meaning they will get more back than they paid in. That is right, paid more than they put in and I am sure, very needed and appreciated.

Now that we have called a duck a duck. Continue the tax break with a proposed sunset clause on an increase in taxed income of those individuals who make $250,000 or more. Exempt would be small businesses. Why, a sole proprietor or small LLC will easily break that $250,000 amount and would end up being double taxed. Most do not mention that employers still pay 6.2% on their side of federal withholdings. Then they would be asked to pay again. Why the sunset clause, because eventually we have to be fair about our taxing. All except those that are below 1.5 x the poverty level would pay the same flat tax without loopholes. 1.5 because that is the measure used by the healthcare law for those who have to buy into the insurance mandate (insurance subsidy).

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

Sounds like you have no skin in the game. This tax cut gives me between $$$2000-2500 per year in my pocket and I don't want to lose that.

SO, you know what, TALK to THE HAND!!!

[-] 1 points by wellhungjury (296) 11 years ago

First off, I am self employed that does not get a cut because I am not on payroll, though I make between $35,000 & $45,000 each year. Second, your right, $2000 is nice to have, but I was referring to all working Americans as getting an extra $1000 is false. Some get more like you, but many get much less. Just think that it is a disservice to skew facts to get people to lean your way. Just tell the truth, we are smart people and can judge for ourselves. Third, I presented a viable idea and what you see is that I somehow have no "skin" in this? I pay, just in a different way and usually quarterly without tax breaks that either side are talking about. So why, may I ask, are you so rude when I just present what is real? I think the payroll tax holiday was a good thing. I just did not think that either side should be using this as a bargaining device. Hell! Listen, I am on your side you bonehead!

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 11 years ago

Of course, it's pretty hard to build fences and prisons if nobody is paying taxes.

That's why republicans prefer to give breaks to job creators so they can buy $40,000 Olsen Twin backpacks... consumer spending is the cornerstone of the economy after all. :p

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 11 years ago

This WOULD BY bad for me and you -
and GOOD FOR AMERICA - because it would show the republiclans for what they are - but - next week they will slime it thru

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

What? Wait?

I was just told on another thread that republicans NEVER raise taxes.

Perhaps their supporters are a bit overdosed?

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

Shooz, the repugs just could not stop themselves this time. Something must have gotten into the TEA. They have gone into full "lemming" mode with aide and abetting from the Tea Baggers. Americans will drive a stake through Repugnant Party and what it clearly stands for & against. This is the last brinkmanship play America needs from it's Congress! (The Politics of Destruction)

I lose $2000/yr on that payroll tax hike. They have stirred the hornets nest and they will be hammered relentlessly from everyone for this direct hit on the middle class. Class Warfare. You betcha. Call it what ever in the HELL you want we are bitching MAD. I have exploded with energy on this one and..................

Eric Cantor is my Senator.

He will know my name. He will know my name. He will know my name. He will know my name. He will know my name. He will know my name. He will know my name. He will know my name. He will know my name. He will know my name. He will know my name. He will know my name. He will know my name. He will know my name. He will know my name. He will know my name. He will know my name. He will know my name. He will know my name. He will know my name. He will know my name. He will know my name. He will know my name. He will know my name. He will know my name. He will know my name. He will know my name. He will know my name.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

Teabaggers are the slimiest of the slime, and their minions are even more deluded than the Paulie boys.

They wear nice Americanish costumes though.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 11 years ago

I kind of agree, but consider this: the deadlock in Congress right now is solid Proof that it IS possible for a protest movement like Occupy to use our existing democratic system to make our government more responsive to our concerns. The Tea Party elected candidates who represent their thinking. Occupy could do it too, but every time somebody suggests it, they get shouted down by people who are afraid of having leaders.

Well guess what: "If you decide not to choose -- you STILL HAVE MADE A CHOICE!" if Occupy doesn't pick sme leaders and elect them, then our leaders will be Tea Partiers, and two or three years from now the left will still be complaining about the Tea Party. But Occupy could have as much influence as the Tea Party, with some discipline, structure, objectives, and leadership.

If Occupiers are still complaining about the Tea Party hijacking the debate in Congress two years from now then it will seem a lot like the high school dropout who is jealous of how much money the valedictorian makes after graduating. That dropout has only himself to blame.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

I choose to believe that teabaggers are Koch whores.

I now KNOW that teabaggers are liars, as they raised my taxes.

They are just shilling for the GOP, in the end.

Shilling to continue the same things that crashed the economy.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago


That's funny. They're saying teabaggers.

I can neither confirm or deny.

I've heard it said that porn people call ball sucking teabagging.

Kind of ironic don't you think?

Teabaggers. What next. Huh.

[-] 2 points by XXAnonymouSXX (455) 11 years ago

To tea bag is a slang term for the act of a man placing his scrotum in the mouth of a sexual partner or onto the face or head of another person. The practice resembles dipping a tea bag into a cup of tea when it is done in a repeated in-and-out motion. As a form of non-penetrative sex, it can be done for its own enjoyment or as foreplay.


[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago


But thanks for confirming what I thought it was. You would think someone in their group would have said something when they were trying to come up with a name.

Hey... Yo.... Guy's.... PEOPLE !

Maybe we want to give this name thing a little more thought.

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 11 years ago

great. Call hoards of the 99% a sexual epithet. That's sure to help things.

[-] 2 points by XXAnonymouSXX (455) 11 years ago

I didn't call them that. They call themselves.

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 11 years ago

Especially those prudish Christians, I'm sure. . /sarc

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

Hey, they chose the nik in the first place.

They never did do their homework.

They still don't.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

Still it's funny.

Consideration or lack of consideration can be an amazing thing.

[-] 0 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

Most of the tea bag protests were more hype than real. We went to see Obama give his speech on the jobs bill some months back and there were three baggers there in opposition. That's it. Three. Many offered them water and condolences, it was a sad affair for them. We thought, this is it? Pathetic. Their were tens of thousands of us, and we about brought down the roof during the speech. He wasn't whistling dixie he was talking about payroll tax cuts. Now here we are, the Repugs are cutting off 160 million Americans at the knees.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

You mean 160 million more.

The lay offs began within 3 months of Bush taking office.

[-] 1 points by LiveAndLetLive (79) from Fort Lauderdale, FL 11 years ago

letting a tax cut expire and raising taxes are two different things! Anyways, both the parties are equally horrible....... I just like to see things the way they are, I give a damn if there's a R next to it or a D. BTW these are the same taxes that fund the SS...... so we are screwed anyways!

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago


Those POS republicans did it again.

Boundless, anti-American, depravity.

If they hate government so much, how can anyone be dumb enough to vote for them, as government representatives?

The idiocracy continues, unabated.


[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

Very good point Tinah!!! But one party happens to be in the muck much deeper

[-] 1 points by Durandus (181) 11 years ago

Having a huge financial problem is the status quo for well over half of America owing to the preference that politicians have for a very small slice of the population whose business it is to put profits over people. America is no longer a country deserving respect as the moral leader of the world but a stark example of what is deplorable in human nature, sunk in depravity. That's not a political observation so much as a cultural observation, neither left or right on the political divide but dead center upon the values of a country that has lost its soul, or rather found its soul on the dark side.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

There's a lack of trust (we are lied to) and money is becoming more important than people, rapidly.

[-] 1 points by XXAnonymouSXX (455) 11 years ago

It was sad the day profits trumped human life.

[-] 1 points by Stormcrow (11) 11 years ago

Well lets see - if a persons survival depends on the bill passing they have a "hugh financial problem.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

Well, let's see, those tax cuts for the rich didn't help them so much either since they were already tripling their income over the rest of us.



[-] 0 points by mee44 (71) 11 years ago

What did you win? The continual defunding of social security and medicare?

Well then, let's just skip to the chase and shutdown SS and medicare altogether and let everyone keep their FICA payroll deduction from here on out !!!

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 11 years ago

Hey, I think I likey!

[-] 0 points by Supplysider (53) from Richboro, PA 11 years ago

So, you have decided to screw over all of our children now? To be honest, i don't want the tax cuts without spending cuts. I would go so far as to say, I would be willing to let the Bush tax cuts expire IF, the rest of the budget deficit was made up immediately with spending cuts.

A two month extension is a joke while they try to work out details. There should have been no extension at all since it will only make the problem with Social Security even worse down the road. Talk about kicking the can. Does no one give a damn about the debt we are dumping on our kids?

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

Where the hell were you when Bush was declaring War on everyone and giving unfunded tax cuts to the rich. Probably bad mouthing people like me for being unpatriotic. Those daze were not that long ago.

Did you vote for BUSH?

[-] 0 points by Supplysider (53) from Richboro, PA 11 years ago

So, Bush started two wars, Obama has started two, guess that makes them the same in your book. Who are you going to vote for this time around? I at least stick to my principals when it comes election time.

[-] 0 points by Supplysider (53) from Richboro, PA 11 years ago

No, I did not, either time.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 11 years ago

Occupy the CANT.or

Occupy the CANT.or.CANNOT

Occupy the CANT.or.CANNOT

Occupy the CANT.or.CANNOT

And while you are at it:

the fuckin scumbags

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

The clown show is over, we're coming for those who scuff at the middle class while coddling the Rich. The Repugnant cave-in over this issue was damage control. But they have been exposed!!!

We are WINNING!!! And we are just beginning. Keep fighting we have them where we want them NOW!!!

[-] 0 points by mee44 (71) 11 years ago

What did you win? The continual defunding of social security and medicare?

Well then, let's just skip to the chase and shutdown SS and medicare altogether and let everyone keep their FICA payroll deduction from now on !!!

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

Another uninformed minion living in a self made fantasy land gone mad.

[-] 0 points by mee44 (71) 11 years ago

Step away from the crack-pipe!

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

You should heed your own advice. Addiction is hard to break.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 11 years ago
[-] 0 points by Spankysmojo (849) 11 years ago

Their own people in the House didn't back them. They had to back down and catch a few zzzzs in the tanning booth.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

WE WON!!! The Repugnants caved as Americans revolted against their continuing obstruction of the middle class.

[-] 0 points by Spankysmojo (849) 11 years ago

Rejoice. Well done!

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

Absolutely, we're not laying down anymore, we push back at every opportunity. We are watching and becoming active. It doesn't stop, it only grows stronger.

Expect US!!!

[-] 0 points by Spankysmojo (849) 11 years ago

Tsall good except the 'expect us'. Sounds like some other guy that tried to come off informative and ended up being killuminati cult.

[-] 0 points by Farleymowat (415) 11 years ago

I thought the reason was to get money out of politics.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 11 years ago

Apparently Puzzlin does not understand the difference between letting a PAYROLL tax cut expire and proposing a income tax increase.

All the Senate proposed was allowing them to continue for two months, They did NOT offer to extend them even for the rest of the year. Why does the Senate want this to come back to haunt us all again in two months just so they can get a longer Christmas break?


[-] 0 points by danmi (66) 11 years ago

Another post by an ignorant uniformed Libtard

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

Do you trolls have any facts to share, ANY???

Apparently not.

[-] 0 points by danmi (66) 11 years ago

About as many facts as your lame ass does. This is just another ignorant post

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

Yet another duality. Thanks for not sharing any facts. As I said, you have NONE

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

Maybe you should talk with Just the Facts. LoL


[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 11 years ago

Fortunately, I do not have to do any wiggling The word REPUGNANT told me what this was all about and it was actually my pass to get out. Go ahead with your HATE convention. Sorry that I interrupted.

GONE - bye bye

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

Absolutely no defense..................

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

No defense. LoL

What Ronnie jj just said says much about the condition of the Repugnant Party since it has truly become Repugnant.

[-] -1 points by Muppetmaster (62) 11 years ago

You are an idiot as well as misinformed. the republican party offered a 1 year extension, the dems offered a 2 month extension. They caved on a 2 month extension. Good for you.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

So, who's the idiot now? Mister Muppetmaster!

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

Yeah they offered that 1 year, so right you are, but to get it, they would have had to sign a pact with the devil since the Repugnants larded up that bill with early early xmas gifts for their kind. One of the conditions was they want to hassle the unemployed by subjecting them to drug tests. That's why their the Repugnant party.

Ask Gov Rick Scott in FLA how that worked out for him. He's the most unpopular gov in the country right now.

[-] 0 points by Muppetmaster (62) 11 years ago

OWS is all about freebies and tax cuts, regardless of what it takes to make the deal or cost. You will take a 2 month extension, which means absolutely nothing over a year simply because it is the democrat proposal. You probably support Obamacare even though Nancy Pelosi stated " We have to pass this to find out what is in it"

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 11 years ago

"but middle-class families facing a thousand-dollar tax hike on January 1st"

this is a complete fabrication....the senate bill only extends the de-funding of Social Security/Medicare for two months.....so it's $160.00 dollars, not a thousand dollar "tax hike"

It's funny how you libs call one sunset of a tax bill a "cut" and one an "increase"....can you say "Hypocrisy"

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

Oh yeah......

Can you say CAVE?

Who's winning NOW???

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 11 years ago

Hmmmm?..... winning what?

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

You don't know, WTF......................................

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

Don't worry about it, just hide and watch. We take care of it for you! No participation from you required.

[-] -1 points by tedscrat (-96) 11 years ago

From what I am reading, the GOP in congress is wanting to find a way to extend the cut for 1 year. The Senate and Obama and more established elements of the GOP want to go ahead and pass the 2-month extension to allow more time for negotiation. What would be the point? The supercommittee could not come up with a plan to cut the deficit. This partisan warfare has been going on since Clinton. The legislature has not passed a budget in a timely manner since 1994 (I hope that fact is accuate). Every 2-3 months we hear about a risk of the government shutting down, only to have a "temporary" extension.
If there is going to be a war, let it be now. It will do no good to pass the extension for just 2 months. No increase in jobs and the employers are not going to expand their payroll based on this uncertainty So lets take the gloves off and finish this in Washington!

[-] -1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

You lost, WE WON!!!

Your party caved, they lost big, and exposed their A$$es. : )

[-] 1 points by tedscrat (-96) 11 years ago

Congrats. We will just be dealing with this again in 2 months. Kicking the old can down the road

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

And take no prisoners!!! We don't want the greedy repugnant deal with the devil to get them either!!!

We own the can this time. Ted keep your hands off it. No need for you to worry none. We will handle it fronm here. We know kicking cans just stresses you out. Just sit this one out. Relax. Your working too Hard!

[-] 0 points by tedscrat (-96) 11 years ago

Nice try, Puzzlin. The fight has just begun :) I have to take this good-naturedly. The stakes are so high and Civil Wars have been fought over so much less. I sure didn't see much compromise when Obama set up a national health care.
And, guess what? you don't own the can. Not until maybe 2012 if the dems retake the majority. I really hope they don't. I am sure you are a great guy and all. But your agenda just doesn't give me that warm feeling

[-] -1 points by mee44 (71) 11 years ago

Today's word is................. Fluctuations...................

I will never hear or see this word again without thinking of this joke.

I was at my bank today; there was a short line. There was just one lady

in front of me, an Asian lady who was trying to exchange yen

for dollars. It was obvious she was a little irritated . . . She asked

the teller, "Why it change? Yesterday, I get two hunat dolla

fo yen. Today I only get hunat eighty? Why it change?"

The teller shrugged his shoulders and said, "Fluctuations."

The Asian lady says, "Fluc you white people too"

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

Good Joke.