Obama says Senate plan ‘only viable way’ to prevent tax hike

Dickieboy said:

Can you source this? #41 seems to contradict these assertions.

Click to expand...

Review & Outlook: The GOP's Payroll Tax Fiasco - WSJ.com
John Boehner’s leadership mess on the payroll tax cut - Post Leadership - The Washington Post
Mitch McConnell?s silence leaves John Boehner out on a limb - Manu Raju and John Bresnahan - POLITICO.com

I dunno. There are a ton. It's been all over the news for a week or so. If there is something specific that you don't find in there that you want a source for, and you can't find it googling, let me know and I'll look more.

teamosil said:

You're mixing a lot of things up. First off, trickle down is about the RICH getting tax cuts, not the middle class. This isn't trickle down. The idea with trickle down is that you give the rich more money, they invest more of it, that spurs the economy. That is definitely true. Nobody disagrees with that all things being equal. The problem with the theory is that investment alone can't fuel the economy. You also need consumer spending, and consumer spending comes from the middle class having money. So, by trying to force too much of the money into the pockets of the rich, the right screwed up the economy. The tradeoff costs of ramming all that money into the pockets of the rich got out of control. Massive deficits, cutting safety net spending, etc. We had a ton of investment, but very little consumer spending because they were screwing the middle class. This is fixing that.

Click to expand...

Something kinda like, "consumer spending", eh?

The pipeline. LOL. 20,000 jobs... This is 1 MILLION jobs at least. 20,000 jobs is basically nothing at the national level.

Click to expand...

That would put Obama at a net 20,000 jobs for his term. If it were me...I would go for it. :lamo

At this point might as well call the vote. But I'd wait till Barry takes off for his taxpayer subsidized, 17 day romp to Hawaii then blame demos for not getting back to sign it.

J-mac

teamosil said:

I dunno. There are a ton. It's been all over the news for a week or so. If there is something specific that you don't find in there that you want a source for, and you can't find it googling, let me know and I'll look more.

Click to expand...

Per you links:
‘Senate Republicans say Mr. Boehner had signed off on the two-month extension’
Review & Outlook: The GOP's Payroll Tax Fiasco - WSJ.com

‘the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page calls into question whether Boehner will be Speaker come 2013 and is saying that he reportedly “flipped” his position on the proposal within 24 hours, following a revolt by his members’ a link to the above article, no new source.

John Boehner’s leadership mess on the payroll tax cut - Post Leadership - The Washington Post

Believing that Boehner was on board and that the House would easily approve the extension…But Boehner has adamantly denied that he backed the McConnell-Reid deal.


Mitch McConnell?s silence leaves John Boehner out on a limb - Manu Raju and John Bresnahan - POLITICO.com

Based on the Politico link, the assertion made in #41 was supported. I have Googled this and found no evidence that support the assertions you made (you made them, why should I source them):

1. McConnell, Reid and Boehner entered negotiations after that bill went to the senate.
2. Boehner gave his proxy to McConnell, meaning that he would let McConnell negotiate on his behalf.
3. Boehner publicly announced that he would abide by whatever they decided.
4. When it came out that it might just be for 2 months, he said that was fine
5. When the senate …agreed on a deal, everybody, including Boehner said it was great …
6. Supposedly Boehner gave McConnell a high five right after the meeting
7. Then, right after the senate left, Boehner was approached by the tea party caucus who apparently threatened an all out revolt.

So the 'Senate Republicans said' or 'The Wall Street Journel is saying' trumps Boehner speaking for himself?

The Senate bill proposes to pay for their PR tax cuts by:

Sec. 401 Guarantee Fees
This section increases the guarantee fees that are charged to mortgage lenders by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by 10 basis points.
Sec. 402 FHA Guarantee Fees
The Federal Housing Administration is required to increase the annual premium charged to homeowners by an amount equal to the increase at the GSEs.
Note: The total savings achieved in Title IV is $35.7 billion over ten years.
Summary of the Two-Month Payroll Tax Cut Extension | Senate Democrats

The House bill contained a similar provision. The FM/FM fee increase are borne by lenders. These increased fees are customarily passed on to mortgage recipients/holders (homeowners). Considering the current housing/mortgage challenges does this seem prudent? The FHA part is an increase to homeowners via their mortgages. Does this seem prudent? I mean really, haven’t homeowners/mortgage holders been beat up enough in the last three years? What am I missing?

Dickieboy said:

‘Senate Republicans say Mr. Boehner had signed off on the two-month extension’

Click to expand...

Are you saying you think that the senate Republicans and Democrats are all lying about what commitment Boehner made to them?

teamosil said:

Are you saying you think that the senate Republicans and Democrats are all lying about what commitment Boehner made to them?

Click to expand...

I don't know as I didn't hear either the 'Senate Republicans and Democrats' OR Boehner say anything in person. Boehner is saying they did. In the end it is irrelevant as we are where we are. Applying blame WILL NOT solve this issue and all those participating are delaying the desired result. Essentially this is another fine example of political posturing that BOTH sides are well accomplished at.

You made 7 other claims that I still have not found a source to substantiate.

Dickieboy said:

I don't know as I didn't hear either the 'Senate Republicans and Democrats' OR Boehner say anything in person. Boehner is saying they did. In the end it is irrelevant as we are where we are. Applying blame WILL NOT solve this issue and all those participating are delaying the desired result. Essentially this is another fine example of political posturing that BOTH sides are well accomplished at.

You made 7 other claims that I still have not found a source to substantiate.

Click to expand...

I feel like you haven't been reading the news for the past week... This whole drama has been unfolding on the front pages of every news site all week. The articles I gave you laid out the same story I'm saying. The only one that seems contentious is that Boehner is apparently denying that he committed to abide by the agreement. The rest is non-controversial and universally reported. And the Boehner denial flies in the face of what everybody else, including the Republican big wigs in the senate, is saying, so I think we can safely assume he's just trying to cover his ass on that one.

teamosil said:

The rest is non-controversial and universally reported. And the Boehner denial flies in the face of what everybody else, including the Republican big wigs in the senate, is saying,

Click to expand...

If you are correct it should be no problem providing sources that NAME these ‘Republican big wigs in the Senate’ as they are so ‘universally reported’. So far all I have seen is ‘sources say’ or ‘Senate Republicans say’, etc. Boehner on the other hand made the denial ‘universally’. This smells of a scapegoat scenario much like the ‘90’s Newt ordeal. But again, this is a waste of time debating. Do you have opinions specific to the various options in the two bills proposed?

Dickieboy said:

If you are correct it should be no problem providing sources that NAME these ‘Republican big wigs in the Senate’ as they are so ‘universally reported’. So far all I have seen is ‘sources say’ or ‘Senate Republicans say’, etc. Boehner on the other hand made the denial ‘universally’. This smells of a scapegoat scenario much like the ‘90’s Newt ordeal. But again, this is a waste of time debating. Do you have opinions specific to the various options in the two bills proposed?

Click to expand...

A scapegoat? That doesn't make sense. What would they be scapegoating him for? They passed the bill 89-10 in the senate. All the players had signed off. All he needed to do was call a vote and he refused. You can't "scapegoat" somebody for their own actions.

Here is what will happen 1 of 2 actions, First on Dec 29 or 30 House will pass the 2 month bill, second house will pass a one year plan and send to the Senate on Monday Dec. 26th. Either way Obama MUST STAY IN WASHINGTON D.C. AND RUINS HIS VACTION. Luv it.

teamosil said:

A scapegoat? That doesn't make sense. What would they be scapegoating him for? They passed the bill 89-10 in the senate.

Click to expand...

It makes perfect sense. The Senate has been getting hammered by not voting on MANY bills the House has sent up presumable due to their opinion that the House has been over-reaching, as I believe they did in the PR tax bill. They could hold the opinion that Boehner has no control of the House Republicans and thus is ‘poisoning’ the GOP in Congress; someone always has to take the fall. If true, I hope they think on this some as the alternative doesn’t seem more appealing: Cantor…Ryan…whoever…

All the players had signed off. All he needed to do was call a vote and he refused. You can't "scapegoat" somebody for their own actions.

Click to expand...

All the SENATE players had signed off. PRESUMABLY, Boehner didn’t call the vote because he didn’t have the votes and felt failing to pass the Senate’s version would be more damaging to the GOP than a no vote. Sure you can ‘scapegoat somebody for their own actions’…in Washington DC…with the ravenous media venues available today…are you kidding?

Dickieboy said:

PRESUMABLY, Boehner didn’t call the vote because he didn’t have the votes and felt failing to pass the Senate’s version would be more damaging to the GOP than a no vote.

Click to expand...

No, it's the other way around. He didn't call a vote because he knew it would pass. There is a procedure in the house where a supermajority can call a vote even if the speaker doesn't want to. The Democrats just started the procedure on the floor to vote to call the vote on the tax break and Boehner adjourned the house right in the middle of it so they couldn't complete the vote.

GOP adjourns House as Democrats try to call up Senate payroll tax bill - NYPOST.com

teamosil said:

No, it's the other way around. He didn't call a vote because he knew it would pass. There is a procedure in the house where a supermajority can call a vote even if the speaker doesn't want to.

Click to expand...

What kind of ‘supermajority’? Three-fifths? Two-thirds? Source for such procedure, please…And do you think the Democrats had such ‘supermajority’?

The Democrats just started the procedure on the floor to vote to call the vote on the tax break and Boehner adjourned the house right in the middle of it so they couldn't complete the vote.

Click to expand...

I saw the replay of this SEVERAL times today...in a pro forma session...with VERY few representatives present. You did note in the article that ‘the House and Senate are in pro forma session, which in effect means they have not adjourned but have sent everyone home until they have reason to reconvene and take action’. Where in the article did it state the Democrats had the aforementioned ‘supermajority’ to force the vote? I read this as merely a floor protest, another example of political posturing. You THINK they had the ‘supermajority’ present to force the vote? Really?

Dickieboy said:

What kind of ‘supermajority’? Three-fifths? Two-thirds?

Click to expand...

Dunno.

Dickieboy said:

I saw the replay of this SEVERAL times today...in a pro forma session...with VERY few representatives present. You did note in the article that ‘the House and Senate are in pro forma session, which in effect means they have not adjourned but have sent everyone home until they have reason to reconvene and take action’. Where in the article did it state the Democrats had the aforementioned ‘supermajority’ to force the vote? I read this as merely a floor protest, another example of political posturing. You THINK they had the ‘supermajority’ present to force the vote? Really?

Click to expand...

Why do you think he adjourned in the middle of it?

teamosil said:

Dunno.



Why do you think he adjourned in the middle of it?

Click to expand...

They adjourned because the course is clear to anyone that has passed 8th grade civics class. And that is to proceed to conference, not have the senate tell congress what to do. Who the Hell does Reid think he is?

J-mac

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

teamosil said:

Dunno.

Click to expand...

I'll be looking forward to reading the source of this 'supermajority forcing a vote' data.

Why do you think he adjourned in the middle of it?

Click to expand...

Please try to comprehend what I posted. Currently the House and Senate is in pro forma session which means the vast majority has gone home but CAN be called back as opposed to 'out of session'. 'He' who adjorned the session was Michael G. Fitzpatrick not Boehner. Fitzpatrick is from Pennsylvania so he is handy to serve as Speaker pro tempore. It wasn't that he 'adjorned in the middle of it' but rather Hoyer and Van Hollen stood to protest during the standard proceedure of the typical brief pro forma session. Now, to reitirate the previous question that remains unanswered:

You THINK they had the ‘supermajority’ present to force the vote? Really?

Franklind said:

Here is what will happen 1 of 2 actions, First on Dec 29 or 30 House will pass the 2 month bill, second house will pass a one year plan and send to the Senate on Monday Dec. 26th. Either way Obama MUST STAY IN WASHINGTON D.C. AND RUINS HIS VACTION. Luv it.

Click to expand...

And you'll probably get four more chances to ruin his vacation while he's stuck at the White House.

Dickieboy said:

What kind of ‘supermajority’? Three-fifths? Two-thirds? Source for such procedure, please…And do you think the Democrats had such ‘supermajority’?



I saw the replay of this SEVERAL times today...in a pro forma session...with VERY few representatives present. You did note in the article that ‘the House and Senate are in pro forma session, which in effect means they have not adjourned but have sent everyone home until they have reason to reconvene and take action’. Where in the article did it state the Democrats had the aforementioned ‘supermajority’ to force the vote? I read this as merely a floor protest, another example of political posturing. You THINK they had the ‘supermajority’ present to force the vote? Really?

Click to expand...

I looked around - Hoyer was simply calling for unanimous consent to bring up the bill for a vote. Which he wouldn't have gotten, of course.

misterman said:

I looked around - Hoyer was simply calling for unanimous consent to bring up the bill for a vote. Which he wouldn't have gotten, of course.

Click to expand...

Agree, that was the point in #64..."I read this as merely a floor protest, another example of political posturing".

Dickieboy said:

Agree, that was the point in #64..."I read this as merely a floor protest, another example of political posturing".

Click to expand...

I was supporting you (your facts, not necessarily your politics).

teamosil said:

Sort of. He promised to veto a bill that REQUIRED him to approve the XL pipeline, but the actual bill just requires him to issue his decision within 60 days, not which way he has to decide it. But, yeah, I think that is part of what happened here. The house Republicans thought they could safely agree to the tax break for the middle class as long as it had something on there about the pipeline because Obama would veto it and they wouldn't have to actually give the middle class a tax break. When it turned out that it would actually go into effect they had to backpedal or else it would actually happen.

Click to expand...

You have posted more unsubstantiated crap in this thread than I thought was possible by anyone. Each post has a new "off the wall" claim and you never provide any proof of your claim.

The House bill NEVER had a requirement that Obama approve the pipeline. Where do you get this stuff???

MrVicchio said:

Boehner Says He Never Backed Senate Payroll Tax Deal : Roll Call News But Dan claims Boehner did agree to it, so obviously we should trust Dan, not the Speaker himself on this.

Click to expand...

The Wall Street Journal says you should trust me, and not the Speaker himself, because the Speaker is a damn liar. :mrgreen:

Senate Republicans say Mr. Boehner had signed off on the two-month extension, but House Members revolted over the weekend and so the Speaker flipped within 24 hours. Mr. Boehner is now demanding that Mr. Reid name conferees for a House-Senate conference on the payroll tax bills. But Mr. Reid and the White House are having too much fun blaming Republicans for "raising taxes on the middle class" as of January 1. Don't be surprised if they stretch this out to the State of the Union, when Mr. Obama will have a national audience to capture the tax issue.

Click to expand...

teamosil said:

Right. 2 months is the compromise to give them more time to work out a deal for the full year. The Democrats have been pushing for the full year from the start, but they couldn't get Republicans in the senate to agree to it in time to avoid the hike going into effect january 1st, so they bought more time to keep trying to find an agreement. The plan is to do it for the whole year, they just need to get enough Republicans on board. This gives them two months to do that.

Click to expand...

More time to get enough Republicans on board? Another two months of kicking the can down the road and hoping for a better outcome? Is it just possible that the reason that there is no agreement is the assumption is that if the Democrats wait another couple of months, maybe the outcome will be different.

I, for one am tired of this delaying issue. Obama has been in power now for three years. The first two with total control of the country. Nothing got done fiscally except to spend more money we don't have. The latest was the fiasco of delaying a vote on a fiscal issue, turning the decision over to a smaller congress with the proviso that if nothing got done automatic cuts would happen. Now that does not seem acceptable, and so we must pass another delay so we can work it out. Congress cannot even live with their own deal.

The plan is to do it for a whole 2 years (house), or 2 months ( Senate). There is no 1 year plan. The compromise was to give Obama 6 more months to figure out another way to delay the construction of the pipeline. Something I am against for two reasons. (1) One more 6 month extension will put the decision past the elections. And he will get one more extension. (2) The pipeline makes sense. It will get built. Either China or the US will reap the benefits.

The Senate doesn't even need to come back to DC to vote. They could either use those 10,000 dollar laptops we provide and vote online, or they could deem the vote passed. That one has already been used, so there is a precedent.

jimbo said:

More time to get enough Republicans on board? Another two months of kicking the can down the road and hoping for a better outcome? Is it just possible that the reason that there is no agreement is the assumption is that if the Democrats wait another couple of months, maybe the outcome will be different.

I, for one am tired of this delaying issue. Obama has been in power now for three years. The first two with total control of the country. Nothing got done fiscally. The latest was the fiasco of delaying a vote on a fiscal issue, turning the decision over to a smaller congress, with the proviso that if nothing got done automatic cuts would happen. Now that does not seem acceptable, and so we must pass another delay so we can work it out.

The plan is to do it for a whole 2 years (house), or 2 months ( Senate). Ther is no 1 year plan. The compromise was to give Obama 6 more months to figure out another way to delay the construction of the pipeline. S, something I am against for two reasons. (1) One more 6 month extension will put the decision past the elections. And he will get one more extension. (2) The pipeline makes sense. It will get built. Either China or the US will reap the benefits.

The Senate doesn't even need to come back to DC to vote. They could either use those 10,000 dollar laptops we provide and vote online, or they could deem the vote passed.
That one has already been used, so there is a precedent.

Click to expand...

When one side is filibustering almost every single attempt to do something about it, it's no wonder nothing is getting done. And that filibustering is going to be red meat for the Dems too.