Democrats going ballistic, complaining that Eric Cantor is a bad boy

[Openmind]

Recheck your facts with a reliable source. Eric Cantor is a manipulator. Even now it is coming out that his own caucus does not like hm, his manner, or his values.

In other words, Cantor is playing this whole mess for his own self serving interests.

Thats not the Left that is saying that; its the right saying it.

Cantor is a consceded A. . .H. . . .!

In fact, he is a lot more dangerous to his boss (Boehner) than he is to anyone else! He obviously believes he is far superior to anyone else, and he is undermining his own leader!

Don't like the guy! And it wouldn't matter if he was Democrat, Republican, or Independent! He is power hungry and MUCH too sure of his own "exceptionalism!"

 

[Openmind]

You are a classless pile of excrement, Shaman. Showing cremation ovens and equating that to economic class warfare is as low as it gets. You should not be allowed to freely roam in our society.

Moderators, go ahead and suspend me AGAIN. I don't care. Your forum is turning into a home base for leftist liars and hypocrites (excuse my redundancy). Hope you're happy with what you've created.

Now, don't hold back, tell us what you really feel!

I think the moderators are demonstrating an amazing level of maturity and restrain where you're concern.

But I hope you continue to get away with it. You are very entertaining in your own way!

 

[Gipper]

If the GOP is so eager to call an Obama bluff, how about this: Call him on his argument that he is acting like a leader, working to fix the debt problem, offering the GOP the opportunity to go big. That's the story line Americans are being fed right now, and the GOP shores it up every time it agrees to another White House summit. A shame, since in fact the only Obama offers are for mediocre cuts, higher taxes, and the opportunity for Republicans to help permanently enshrine big government. That, or for joint ownership of a failing economy and/or shutdown turmoil.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052702304521304576446392720891616.html

The Rs are mucking this thing up. BO has offered no compromise and no plan. He just wants tax increases so that the TP turns on the Rs. It is so transparent and yet many don't see it.

BO thinks he can follow BJ Bubba's govt. shut down strategy to re-election. Problem is the economy (thanks to him) is in terrible shape, while BJ had a thriving economy and the added plus of running against an old progressive fool in Bob Dole.

I love when BO says the wealthy need to pay their fair share...WTF is that? The wealthy already pay most of the income taxes. I guess to a foolish stinking socialist like BO, a fair share means all your f-ing money and the useful idiots who like him believe. Its insanity!!!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

He made the point to the Boy King that there was no time to craft a deal and that it was time to lok at contingencies.

Typical.

Obama has been President, since January 2009....and, Republicans spent the following year-and-a-half whining & crying about (and, made every effort to block) health-care reformation.

NOW, they're saying the (one) year, since, hasn't afforded them any time to think-about $pending???

Sorry, Eric.....we can't afford your laid-back, genteel, Southern-style o' doing things (until a Black-dude is elected President), in these, here YEWnahted States.​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Cantor is a consceded A. . .H. . . .!

In fact, he is a lot more dangerous to his boss (Boehner) than he is to anyone else! He obviously believes he is far superior to anyone else, and he is undermining his own leader!

Don't like the guy! And it wouldn't matter if he was Democrat, Republican, or Independent! He is power hungry and MUCH too sure of his own "exceptionalism!"

I guess we could also blame the lamestream-media for his political-transformation.

December 11, 2008

Eric Cantor; GOP's Rising Star​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

You are a classless pile of excrement, Shaman. Showing cremation ovens and equating that to economic class warfare is as low as it gets.

Ah, yes.....let's try to ignore the "conservatives'" Grand Dame (of economic$; Ayn Rand), and how her opinion of workers (i.e. useless parasites), so-coincidentally parallels that of Germany's (then) Master Race (i.e. our present-day producers of all wealth), towards the unwashed-masses (i.e. our present-day, dwindling middle-class).

(See: War on the Weakhttp://www.newsweek.com/2011/04/10/war-on-the-weak.html)

Your faux-indignation is not all that impressive....but, typically Teabagger.​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The Rs are mucking this thing up. BO has offered no compromise and no plan. He just wants tax increases so that the TP turns on the Rs. It is so transparent and yet many don't see it.

Gee.....wouldn't that make it GEORGE BUSH'S FAULT?????

"President Barack Obama made clear during his campaign for the presidency that he intended to let the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire on schedule at the end of 2010.

The curious may want to know why the Bush tax cuts are set to expire in the first place. After all, if then-President George W. Bush and Congress thought they were a good idea when they passed them in the early 2000s, why make them temporary?"

Bush Tax Cuts​

Shouldn't you "conservatives" be calling-out Lil' Dumbya.....and, MAKE HIM explain his logic behind making those tax-cuts TEMPORARY??!!!

 

[steveox]

.....eclipsed, only, by white wing/pro-extermination philosophy....



been there.....

pizza yummy!!!

 

[BigRob]

Gee.....wouldn't that make it GEORGE BUSH'S FAULT?????

Shouldn't you "conservatives" be calling-out Lil' Dumbya.....and, MAKE HIM explain his logic behind making those tax-cuts TEMPORARY??!!!

Perhaps you want to brush up on how the government works Shaman?

Any bill passed under reconciliation is subject to the Byrd Rule, which, among other things, forbids a bill passed under reconciliation from altering federal revenue for more than 10 years. Since both the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were passed using reconciliation, they expire at the end of ten years.

You may recall the legislative fight that took place over these tax cuts, and to make them permanent would have required 60 senators, something that was thought to be unattainable at the time.

Your article states:

The answer is that President Bush and a complicit Congress didn’t want to show the magnitude of the deficits that would result from their tax cuts. To hide those deficits as they were pushing them through they used a variety of accounting tricks. One of those tricks was attaching expiration dates so that, on paper, there wouldn’t be any long-term costs. This made the long-term deficit picture look fairly rosy on paper even as it doomed Bush’s successor and the current Congress to cleaning up the mess.

This is a complete lie, and has no bearing on reality. Clearly the author has no grasp of Senate rules and procedure, and simply invents facts to make a political argument.

It is frankly astonishing how clearly the author of your article is lying...especially as he is writing for what claims to be a credible source. The author Michael Ettlinger is the Vice President for Economic Policy at American Progress, and it seems pretty clear he does not conduct actual research before writing these hit pieces.

 

[ProudLefty]

Perhaps you want to brush up on how the government works Shaman?

Any bill passed under reconciliation is subject to the Byrd Rule, which, among other things, forbids a bill passed under reconciliation from altering federal revenue for more than 10 years. Since both the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were passed using reconciliation, they expire at the end of ten years.

You may recall the legislative fight that took place over these tax cuts, and to make them permanent would have required 60 senators, something that was thought to be unattainable at the time.

Your article states:


This is a complete lie, and has no bearing on reality. Clearly the author has no grasp of Senate rules and procedure, and simply invents facts to make a political argument.

It is frankly astonishing how clearly the author of your article is lying...especially as he is writing for what claims to be a credible source. The author Michael Ettlinger is the Vice President for Economic Policy at American Progress, and it seems pretty clear he does not conduct actual research before writing these hit pieces.

That isn't quite how the Byrd Rule works. By sunsetting, the Congress mooted the Byrd Rule, thus making Mr.Shaman's post essentially accurate.

 

[BigRob]

That isn't quite how the Byrd Rule works. By sunsetting, the Congress mooted the Byrd Rule, thus making Mr.Shaman's post essentially accurate.

They were only sunset to get around the Byrd Rule. Either way, ten years was all you would get. That is why they were not made permanent.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

pizza yummy!!!

Gee.....and, I'd always considered you History-challenged.

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Perhaps you want to brush up on how the government works Shaman?

Any bill passed under reconciliation is subject to the Byrd Rule, which, among other things, forbids a bill passed under reconciliation from altering federal revenue for more than 10 years. Since both the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were passed using reconciliation, they expire at the end of ten years.

You may recall the legislative fight that took place over these tax cuts, and to make them permanent would have required 60 senators, something that was thought to be unattainable at the time.

Your article states:

The answer is that President Bush and a complicit Congress didn’t want to show the magnitude of the deficits that would result from their tax cuts. To hide those deficits as they were pushing them through they used a variety of accounting tricks. One of those tricks was attaching expiration dates so that, on paper, there wouldn’t be any long-term costs. This made the long-term deficit picture look fairly rosy on paper even as it doomed Bush’s successor and the current Congress to cleaning up the mess.

This is a complete lie, and has no bearing on reality.

Gee.....you're suggesting YOU remember "the legislative fight that took place over these tax cuts"?????

That was the EXACT argument.....that the tax-cuts WOULD generate a serious-DEFICIT!!!!....and, here we ARE!!

You can dance all-around the legislation & wording (from this article)....but, the outcome is still the same; the tax-cut$ (for temporary 1%er relief) drove our budget into a ditch! As far as I'm concerned, the cut$ were nothing-more than an interest-free LOAN!

If Dems were asking for a percentage of the high-roller$ PROFIT$, from this loan, that'd be one thing. They're NOT!! They're merely asking the 1%ers/high-roller$ (and, their politician/lobbyist cohorts) to HONOR THEIR COMMITMENT; END THE TAX-CUT$!!!!​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

That isn't quite how the Byrd Rule works. By sunsetting, the Congress mooted the Byrd Rule, thus making Mr.Shaman's post essentially accurate.

There's ALSO the Fact that the cut$ had no monetary/budget benefits, for the average-taxpayer!​

"Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues."

Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues​

 

[BigRob]

Gee.....you're suggesting YOU remember "the legislative fight that took place over these tax cuts"?????

That was the EXACT argument.....that the tax-cuts WOULD generate a serious-DEFICIT!!!!....and, here we ARE!!

You can dance all-around the legislation & wording (from this article)....but, the outcome is still the same; the tax-cut$ (for temporary 1%er relief) drove our budget into a ditch! As far as I'm concerned, the cut$ were nothing-more than an interest-free LOAN!

If Dems were asking for a percentage of the high-roller$ PROFIT$, from this loan, that'd be one thing. They're NOT!! They're merely asking the 1%ers/high-roller$ (and, their politician/lobbyist cohorts) to HONOR THEIR COMMITMENT; END THE TAX-CUT$!!!!​

You asked why they were not permanent...I explained to you...you changed the subject....

Additionally, the Bush tax cuts cost (high estimate here) $2.5 trillion over a ten year period. The fact that you are going to sit here and attempt to argue that $250 billion a year ruined the country is quite hilarious...especially given the current levels of spending to "fix" the problem.