Dems hold up UB benefits and one wants to filibuster UB benefits

[Onceler]

Again, if I am wrong and you can show that to me in that report I'll say I am. Which will still not change my main point (this is a silly tangent), that he should have passed rate changes before now so he wouldn't have given his opposition the stick to force compromise of this type. IMO, this shows a lack of foresight and an incapacity to multi-task that I find frightening in leadership.

You're kind of talking out of your arse. We know you don't like or respect Obama, which is fine. But you said it would have been "easy" for him to throw the extension into the stimulus, when in fact, it would have been impossible. Literally impossible.

And you keep throwing around "supermajority" as though it means something when it comes to getting Democrats to extend BUSH TAX CUTS, and as though it meant something in the Senate....

 

[Bonestorm]

Whether or not you see it "making sense" it is what is. I do not see the assumption of a rate increase in their numbers. Show me where I am wrong.

You don't see a rate increase in their numbers because it is the baseline number to which the stimulus bill is being compared. It's a very simple concept. The CBO assumes current law will remain current law except for as provided in the proposed legislation it is assessing.

I'm going to chalk this one up to you being a sophist tool just for giggles.

 

[Damocles]

You're kind of talking out of your arse. We know you don't like or respect Obama, which is fine. But you said it would have been "easy" for him to throw the extension into the stimulus, when in fact, it would have been impossible. Literally impossible.

And you keep throwing around "supermajority" as though it means something when it comes to getting Democrats to extend BUSH TAX CUTS, and as though it meant something in the Senate....

You're "kind of" *sigh*

I'm bored now.

 

[Damocles]

You don't see a rate increase in their numbers because it is the baseline number to which the stimulus bill is being compared. It's a very simple concept. The CBO assumes current law will remain current law except for as provided in the proposed legislation it is assessing.

I'm going to chalk this one up to you being a sophist tool just for giggles.

And again, the numbers would reveal that fact if such an assumption was made, you'd be able to point to the change in the actual report. If such is the case, please point to me where that assumption was made so we can finally end this tangential conversation.

 

[Canceled1]

you're right...obama has done very little with the economy, he blew it spending so much time and effort on the h/c bill...

that said...obama is correct...this is about compromise, dems are going to look stupid right now for sticking to party purity while millions of americans have their UB benefits expire because you dems couldn't stop whining about tax cuts for the wealthy....this isn't about the budget, this is about you dems holding up UB benefits because you didn't get your way on letting bush tax cuts expire

the dems and obama claim that holding up UB benefits is holding the american people hostage....yet now....nope...different tune

that is partisan bullshit

Does it ever cease to amaze you how quick they eat their young?

I have been giggling all day watching them crucify the Messiah!

I feel bad for Obama in a way. Nothing worse than having that mangy, one-legged Chihuahua Pelosi yapping and biting at your ankles!

 

[apple0154]

Watermark = Ignore what the CBO report on this specific legislation actually says. I'll assume that Nigel is right because he ignored that too.

Damo says. This particular CBO report, as far as I can tell from the assumptions actually listed in Revenue part B, assumes no rate change. Please point out where in this particular report that you can see the assumption of the rate change and I will gladly say that I was mistaken.

Watermark plays stupid and posts some inane rubbish about Damo.

Nigel links to something else that talks about what they "generally" do, then I point out that the CBO report he linked to shows no rate increase in the section I pointed to in that actual report.

Then Nigel links to still another different document that doesn't prove his point.

Watermark jumps on the bandwagon and plays attack the Damo card.

It's all good. What I derive from this line of "argument" is that you too see that in this CBO report they assume the continued rates that I mention. Probably because it is the assumption they were given and they cannot move off of that assumption. But, I will again say that if you can point to the place in the CBO report linked by Nigel where they assume a rate hike on the middle class I will say, "Okay, he couldn't have done it in this particular legislation."

This will not change my position that a leader with even a modicum of foresight would have had his super majorities pass the rates he wanted to continue and force the argument now to be about only the rates he did not want to continue.

Damo, were you on vacation when HCR was being debated? If Obama had suggested as much as a box of Kleenex to be included the bill wouldn't have passed. It's absurd to believe a tax rate adjustment could have been discussed at the same time.

 

[Damocles]

Damo, were you on vacation when HCR was being debated? If Obama had suggested as much as a box of Kleenex to be included the bill wouldn't have passed. It's absurd to believe a tax rate adjustment could have been discussed at the same time.

And thus begins again the silliness. Point out in the CBO report earlier linked where the assumption of tax rate hikes came into play. Either you can, or you cannot. It's rather moot as it doesn't actually change the main thrust of my point either way.

Main point. Obama should have spent a portion of the past two years passing his tax "plan" he promoted during his campaign. If he had the GOP would not have a stick to use as a lever in a compromise argument. Instead, because he has no foresight, we have Ds voting against UB so they won't have to "compromise"...

 

[Onceler]

And thus begins again the silliness.

No, no - the silliness began ages ago when you claimed it would be "easy" to have put the tax extension into the stimulus bill.

I can't even begin to explain to you how out of touch w/ reality that idea is.

 

[Damocles]

No, no - the silliness began ages ago when you claimed it would be "easy" to have put the tax extension into the stimulus bill.

I can't even begin to explain to you how out of touch w/ reality that idea is.

*sigh* The silliness began when I pointed out that in the CBO report it shows nothing of the presumed rate hikes you say are there. Unless you can find them, you are just blowing more smoke up your own hole.

I can't even explain how silly the argument is.

First, it is just a tangent. During the past two years, had Obama passed his tax "plan" he promoted, we wouldn't be arguing about a "compromise" now. But Obama didn't have the foresight and now the GOP has a stick to use as a lever to force what could have been moot.

IMO, such lack of foresight and incapacity to multi-task is a sign of poor leadership, planning skills and shows an inability to prioritize. It leaves the beloved leader looking weak. Then, rather than get his D leadership to help he didn't include them and he looks even worse than weak because he can't even lead the people who agree with him...

 

[Onceler]

I'm not "blowing smoke up my hole." I'm saying what I said since the beginning, which is 100% fact - your contention that it would have been "easy" to put it into the stimulus is completely ludicrous & laughable.

He kept his promise Damo, and guess what he did at the same time? He moved to the center & appealed to independents, kind of like Clinton did after '94.

You'd find fault with anything he did, any way he did it. Because he has a 'D' after his name.

 

[Damocles]

I'm not "blowing smoke up my hole." I'm saying what I said since the beginning, which is 100% fact - your contention that it would have been "easy" to put it into the stimulus is completely ludicrous & laughable.

He kept his promise Damo, and guess what he did at the same time? He moved to the center & appealed to independents, kind of like Clinton did after '94.

You'd find fault with anything he did, any way he did it. Because he has a 'D' after his name.

*sigh*

Not really. Now you sound like a Bush supporter back in the day getting upset because people criticized the leadership of Bush. The reality is you know I am right. With a bit of foresight and the capacity to multi-task he could have forestalled this "necessity" to compromise and earn the title of 'Captain Cave-In.' (Not my name, it's one I heard on the radio on "Progressive Radio" today as I was coming home.)

 

[Onceler]

*sigh*

Not really. Now you sound like a Bush supporter back in the day getting upset because people criticized the leadership of Bush. The reality is you know I am right. With a bit of foresight and the capacity to multi-task he could have forestalled this "necessity" to compromise and earn the title of 'Captain Cave-In.'

LOL - it's great to see you taking your cues from Daily Kos now.

I hardly see it as a cave. He got more stimulus, energy credits, et al. It was a good compromise bill, and I hope it's the first of more like it.

 

[Damocles]

LOL - it's great to see you taking your cues from Daily Kos now.

I hardly see it as a cave. He got more stimulus, energy credits, et al. It was a good compromise bill, and I hope it's the first of more like it.

I'm reasonably happy with it myself, actually. I don't think it would be wise to raise taxes on anybody during a downturn. Yeah, even those "greedy" people who make more than me. I particularly like the $5 Million limit on death taxes.

However, I do believe that he could have made the GOP eat it if he had a bit of foresight and better leadership skills.

 

[Onceler]

I'm reasonably happy with it myself, actually. I don't think it would be wise to raise taxes on anybody during a downturn. Yeah, even those "greedy" people who make more than me. I particularly like the $5 Million limit on death taxes.

However, I do believe that he could have made the GOP eat it if he had a bit of foresight and better leadership skills.

The 2-year extension on the over $250K set (which I'd hardly call "the rich" until that gets quite a bit higher) was mostly symbolic for the left. They aren't meaningful #'s in the scheme of things; of about $200 billion a year, they represent something like $30 billion.

2 more years on that is hardly enough to get up in arms about; it was just symbolic...just the left now wanting Bush to get a last lick in.

 

[Onceler]

And Obama might even gain more by playing it this way; it's independents he's going to need in '12.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

1 = 1 + 0

Assuming x and y > 0

 

[Canceled2]

Does anyone realize that the House Dems refused to vote on it today? Or more correctly they voted to table it.

 

[Damocles]

Does anyone realize that the House Dems refused to vote on it today? Or more correctly they voted to table it.

Yes. But I thought I'd let Onceler find that out himself. He tends to take information like that better when I'm not the source.

 

[Canceled2]

Yes. But I thought I'd let Onceler find that out himself. He tends to take information like that better when I'm not the source.

It just seemed odd that no one has mentioned it on here

 

[Damocles]

It just seemed odd that no one has mentioned it on here

Yeah, I've noticed. I actually came on tonight to see what people were saying about it. I thought Onceler might have something interesting to say.