Obama tax cut

NigelTufnel said:
You might have been talking about it, but no one in Congress was and near as I recall, no one was taking to streets clamoring for one notwithstanding that the Republicans ran the zoo. Moreover, all that horseshit in the 90s about balanced budgets was replaced with the "give the people their money back" (i.e. tax cuts) once the goal of balanced budgets was actually achieved (at least according to gov't accounting).
Click to expand...
Coupled with decreased spending, giving the people their money back is a fine idea.

Anyway, this totally ignores things like how Reagan tried to work towards this in the 1980s (unsuccessfully, even the deal struck with the D House and R Senate leaders to cut $2 for every $1 of tax increases went unheeded, the House had no intention of passing such an Amendment). This drive didn't stop there, those propelling the notion tried to call a constitutional convention, however liberals were "appalled" and used scare tactics to pretend that they could change the constitution willy-nilly disregarding the very real provisions that no changes could be made until ratified by the 3/4 of the states as well as the fact that it is entirely constitutional to limit the meeting to what provisions you would like to vote on, they then said that the states wouldn't be allowed to select their own representatives, which was patent falsehoods. As more state legislators started to sign on to the idea, suddenly the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act was passed to derail it, and to make it appear as if the Congress might be heading towards curbing its spending. When the bill started to affect popular programs, it was taken to court where judges ruled portions of the bill to be unconstitutional, it was later repealed in its entirety after losing much of its meat in later votes after that ruling.

This also ignores things like the 1994 Contract With America which called for a Balanced Budget Amendment and that in 1995 an Amendment passed the house, and was only 1 vote shy in the Senate...

Are you seriously going to continue to say that this was "unheard" of by you forever or that it hasn't been something of a constant with a large portion of those in the R party?
 
Oh, and I almost forgot to mention, during George W. Bush's tenure, a balanced budget amendment was introduced, year 2007. Trivia question: Does anybody know who sponsored the legislation?
 
Damocles said:
Coupled with decreased spending, giving the people their money back is a fine idea.
Click to expand...

We all know how that worked out. And, really, if spending was the issue as you suggest, a balanced budget amendment would come first, followed by tax cuts, if appropriate. But we all know how that worked out too.

Damocles said:
Anyway, this totally ignores things like how Reagan tried to work towards this in the 1980s (unsuccessfully, even the deal struck with the D House and R Senate leaders to cut $2 for every $1 of tax increases went unheeded, the House had no intention of passing such an Amendment). This drive didn't stop there, those propelling the notion tried to call a constitutional convention, however liberals were "appalled" and used scare tactics to pretend that they could change the constitution willy-nilly disregarding the very real provisions that no changes could be made until ratified by the 3/4 of the states as well as the fact that it is entirely constitutional to limit the meeting to what provisions you would like to vote on, they then said that the states wouldn't be allowed to select their own representatives, which was patent falsehoods. As more state legislators started to sign on to the idea, suddenly the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act was passed to derail it, and to make it appear as if the Congress might be heading towards curbing its spending. When the bill started to affect popular programs, it was taken to court where judges ruled portions of the bill to be unconstitutional, it was later repealed in its entirety after losing much of its meat in later votes after that ruling.
Click to expand...

Here's a hint, if you have to go back more than twenty years to support your position about the modern tea party movement your position may be somewhat suspect.


Damocles said:
This also ignores things like the 1994 Contract With America which called for a Balanced Budget Amendment and that in 1995 an Amendment passed the house, and was only 1 vote shy in the Senate...
Click to expand...

When a Democrat was president and Republicans didn't control how money was spent. My point is pretty simple: Republicans love tax cuts and only hate spending when they don't control it.

Damocles said:
Are you seriously going to continue to say that this was "unheard" of by you forever or that it hasn't been something of a constant with a large portion of those in the R party?
Click to expand...

If the Republicans really gave a shit about a balanced budget amendment it would have been a priority for them when they ran the zoo. But, they didn't do shit about it and instead cut taxes while increasing spending. And all the while Republicans supporters did exactly nothing about it.
 
Damocles said:
Oh, and I almost forgot to mention, during George W. Bush's tenure, a balanced budget amendment was introduced, year 2007. Trivia question: Does anybody know who sponsored the legislation?
Click to expand...


Funny how it came after the Democrats took back Congress, isn't it?


I'll guess Michele Bachmann. Second guess: Ron Paul.
 
And lest we forget in July of 2005 it was proposed as well. (yeah, I like to keep it going.)

Twice during GWB's terms a balanced budget amendment was brought forward. In 2005 there were 123 sponsors for the bill brought forward in 2005. It seems that it was somewhat of a priority during those terms, more especially during Bush's second term considering both of the amendments were proposed during that term.

But, hey! Just ignore that pesky reality, it is better to just say how you "don't remember" stuff and make suggestive posts that have no bearing on actual history.
 
And before Nigel tries to say "only twice, couldn't be much of a priority!

I'll also note that in February of 2005 it was brought forward (yeah, twice in one year), 24 were sponsors of that particular attempt.
 
Damocles said:
And lest we forget in July of 2005 it was proposed as well. (yeah, I like to keep it going.)

Twice during GWB's terms a balanced budget amendment was brought forward. In 2005 there were 123 sponsors for the bill brought forward in 2005. It seems that it was somewhat of a priority during those terms, more especially during Bush's second term considering both of the amendments were proposed during that term.

But, hey! Just ignore that pesky reality, it is better to just say how you "don't remember" stuff and make suggestive posts that have no bearing on actual history.
Click to expand...


Yes, it was such a big priority that it languished in committee and not a single hearing was even held on the goddamned thing. Quite the priority there.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Yes, it was such a big priority that it languished in committee and not a single hearing was even held on the goddamned thing. Quite the priority there.
Click to expand...
Apparently, reality hacks you off and makes you suddenly surprised that the idea was important to republicans even in the years you thought it hadn't been. Imagine if the Rs had had a super majority like Obama had. I really believe that spending would be reigned in, and that we'd be better off today.

It isn't some thing that was never brought forward or spoken of during Bush's years. It very clearly wasn't the case. Nor can you say you didn't hear it from "any republicans", because I know you heard it from me.

You have the habit lately of having conveniently poor memory.
 
Damocles said:
Apparently, reality hacks you off and makes you suddenly surprised that the idea was important to republicans even in the years you thought it hadn't been. Imagine if the Rs had had a super majority like Obama had. I really believe that spending would be reigned in, and that we'd be better off today.
Click to expand...


Yeah, imagine if. Maybe they would have held a hearing on the proposal or, imagine if, a committee vote.

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that Republicans would reign in spending if they had a supermajority. When they had a majority they spent, spent, spent.
 
Damocles said:
Apparently, reality hacks you off and makes you suddenly surprised that the idea was important to republicans even in the years you thought it hadn't been. Imagine if the Rs had had a super majority like Obama had. I really believe that spending would be reigned in, and that we'd be better off today.

It isn't some thing that was never brought forward or spoken of during Bush's years. It very clearly wasn't the case. Nor can you say you didn't hear it from "any republicans", because I know you heard it from me.

You have the habit lately of having conveniently poor memory.
Click to expand...


You crack me up. Seriously. Hell, just this year Republicans were calling for hearings on birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, yet when they were in power not a single hearing was held on a balanced budget amendment and I don't recall a single Republican pushing for one.
 
Onceler said:
How so? A cut is a cut; most people think their taxes were actually increased.

Lord, are you an idiot. Dumb beyond words.
Click to expand...

you blamed the lack of knowledge on the tea party...when in truth obama et al designed it that way....

good lord, you're so silly you can't even see how stupid you are....

thanks for the laughs, really....to try and blame the tea party when the article clearly stated the "fault" if you will....lays with obama et al for designing the tax cut to be virtually unknown

what a fool
 
NigelTufnel said:
Yeah, imagine if. Maybe they would have held a hearing on the proposal or, imagine if, a committee vote.

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that Republicans would reign in spending if they had a supermajority. When they had a majority they spent, spent, spent.
Click to expand...
Hence the amendments you refuse to even remember.

I like you Nigel, often you are fair and intelligent, but on this one you've been really weak and defensive.

The reality doesn't fit within your idea of "what should be" so you say, "I never heard anybody calling for that during Bush's years!" I then point to the fact that THREE TIMES it was brought forward and the amount of co-sponsors calling for just that during his terms. And that was just those in the Congress. A balanced budget amendment has been something that many in the R party have worked towards regardless of who was resident in the White House for many years.

You start by saying "nobody" said anything, then when I point out that not only did "somebody" say something, but people tried to get it done during that time, you try to "piff" it off. Yeah, republicans did speak against that spending, unfortunately it wasn't enough of them.
 
Yurt said:
you blamed the lack of knowledge on the tea party...when in truth obama et al designed it that way....

good lord, you're so silly you can't even see how stupid you are....

thanks for the laughs, really....to try and blame the tea party when the article clearly stated the "fault" if you will....lays with obama et al for designing the tax cut to be virtually unknown

what a fool
Click to expand...


Summing up, it's Obama's fault that the tea baggers are uninformed boobs. and it's Obama's fault for putting policy over politics.
 
Yurt said:
you blamed the lack of knowledge on the tea party...when in truth obama et al designed it that way....

good lord, you're so silly you can't even see how stupid you are....

thanks for the laughs, really....to try and blame the tea party when the article clearly stated the "fault" if you will....lays with obama et al for designing the tax cut to be virtually unknown

what a fool
Click to expand...

Like I said - most people think their taxes went up. I stand by my statement.

As usual, you're desperate for the big "gotcha," but it's still elusive for you.
 
Damocles said:
Hence the amendments you refuse to even remember.

I like you Nigel, often you are fair and intelligent, but on this one you've been really weak and defensive.

The reality doesn't fit within your idea of "what should be" so you say, "I never heard anybody calling for that during Bush's years!" I then point to the fact that THREE TIMES it was brought forward and the amount of co-sponsors calling for just that during his terms. And that was just those in the Congress. A balanced budget amendment has been something that many in the R party have worked towards regardless of who was resident in the White House for many years.
Click to expand...


Dude, sponsoring a bill is the bare minimum a politician can do. It takes zero work whatsoever. Claiming that the mere sponsorship of a bill that sits in committee where nothing at all happens whatsoever is "working towards" something is laughable. Things that are priorities do not just sit in committee. Congress holds hearings, debate the measure, pimp it the media and so on.

But hey, I'm not the one that needs convincing. It's folks like you that buy into the window-dressing that are the marks. I wouldn't think you to be such a cheap date, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top