Here it comes again. The media is up first. The sales technique is tried and true scare tactics to prepare the public for a huge tax increase. How many times have you heard it all before? The public wants Congress to work together to save the country. Bipartisan legislation is called for, and media woe to the members of Congress who do anything that harms the country; i.e., harms the parasite class. It is time to put the country first. Yeah, right. When was the last time you saw the scum in Congress do anything that did not end in a tax increase. How many cliffs did the country go over between the first one, LBJs war on poverty, and the most recent one, the Affordable Care Act. It would have been less painful if every productive American took a suicide leap off Mount Everest instead of being thrown over every cliff the parasites can find: The fact is: The parasite class took the country over so many fiscal cliffs the latest one is as low as Death Valley. This latest economic crisis convinces me that parasites are part maggot. Maggots feed on decaying matter; parasites feed on a decaying society. Now if only there was a word combining the two: parasite (noun) 1. Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host. 2. a. One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return. b. One who lives off and flatters the rich; a sycophant. 3. A professional dinner guest, especially in ancient Greece. XXXXX maggot (noun) 1. The legless, soft-bodied, wormlike larva of any of various flies of the order Diptera, often found in decaying matter. 2. Slang. A despicable person. 3. An extravagant notion; a whim. maggoty (adjective)
Granny says, "Dat's right - it's a bump inna road dat makes ya go wheee! like dat lil' pig inna commercial when ya go over it... The "fiscal cliff" isn't a cliff at all November 26, 2012, You're going to be hearing the phrase "fiscal cliff" a lot over the next few weeks: The phrase has emerged as a shorthand way to describe the combination of tax hikes and spending cuts set to start kicking in at the end of the year. Lawmakers are now feverishly negotiating over how to keep many of those spending cuts and tax increases from kicking in - to keep from what is often described as "going off the fiscal cliff."
If you read the article you tell me if they are simply crooks, or if they are paragots my word for parasites and maggots. Claptrap About Compromise By George Neumayr on 11.28.12 @ 6:09AM It is the establishment's euphemism for collusion in corruption. The Bolsheviks, according to historians, robbed banks before they rose to power in Russia. That foreshadowed their economic policies. The Marxism they implemented once in power was just an extension of their armed robbery. Today's redistributionists in America don't have bank robbery in their pasts but they do accept organized theft as the norm of politics. They see all wealth belonging to the state automatically, which is why they count all tax cuts as "government spending" and why they feel entitled to hike up taxes whenever a self-inflicted "crisis" appears. Taxpayers didn't cause the "fiscal cliff" emergency; derelict pols did. But the taxpayers, not the pols, will pay for it. To pay off their debts, pols will first rob the rich and then move on to the middle class, where much greater potential tax revenue resides. The difference between bank robbery and politics is one of degree, not kind. But if you control the media, education, and culture, as the redistributionists in America largely do, politics as organized theft can be presented as good government. The "extremists," according to this understanding of politics, are the ones who refuse to participate in the fleecing. The whole fiscal cliff debate revolves around redistributionist hectoring that casts collusion in organized theft as compromise. Under the patronage of the media, the politicians most responsible for the debt get to dictate the terms of compromise to the ones least responsible for it. Fiscal hawks receive regular media scolding for not agreeing to tax increases while the most prodigal members of Congress feel no such scrutiny and remain in control of the debate. The preservation of federal government spending is so sacred that the establishment implicitly compares it to the abolition of slavery. Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post thinks President Obama should hold regular screenings of the movie Lincoln for members of Congress, such is the movie's relevance to the fiscal cliff debate. A spate of articles, celebrating the glories of compromise on behalf of progressive goals, has appeared praising Honest Abe for his dishonesty as the movie depicts it. Why pols would need encouragement to be dishonest in order to keep spending other people's money isn't clear. They are already very good at it. They don't need to watch Lincoln to hone their skills. But the scene that Marcus proposes would capture the phoniness of Washington nicely: dishonest pols riveted to a semi-fabricated tale (one of the consultants on the movie has acknowledged that it is riddled with historical inaccuracies) based upon the work of an author known for her plagiarism. The burgeoning cult of Dishonest Abe befits this age in which pols like to see their vices projected as virtues on screen. Bring back "earmarks," burbled Joe Klein on ABC's This Week during a discussion of the movie. Al Hunt recounts approvingly the corruption of LBJ. To get legislation passed, he would offer wavering politicians comically direct bribes from the budget: "A Model Cities bill intended to benefit large urban areas was resisted by Maine Democratic Senator Edmund Muskie. Johnson directed [Joseph] Califano to include a city from Maine, even though the state didn't have any large metropolitan areas. 'What city?' the aide asked. 'Any god(*)(*)(*)(*) city he wants,' LBJ replied." Hunt sees this style of politics as a cure to the fiscal cliff rather than a cause of it. If only Obama had the freedom to bribe Republicans with bridges to nowhere, America could move forward off more fiscal cliffs in the future. But in the midst of their renewed enthusiasm about horse trading and grimy practical politics, reporters reserve the right to sniff at such "lobbyists" as Grover Norquist. Bribes are fine, but his tax reform group's pledge, they say, has corrupted our politics. Reporters are fond of the phrase "Republican orthodoxy," though the very fact that conservatives like Norquist ask waffling Republicans to make pledges against tax hikes indicates that it doesn't really exist. There is no Democratic equivalent to Grover Norquist asking Democrats to pledge never to cut taxes, because no Democrat would ever dare support such a policy. The orthodoxy of the Democratic Party is so tight that pledges are unnecessary. Washington suffers from too little principle, not too little compromise. A party of bribes and broken pledges is the media's idea of a revitalized party of Lincoln, but that would only hasten its collapse. As the debt crisis mounts, the Democrats will move from the rich to the middle class, justifying its emergency raids for revenue on Willie Sutton-like grounds -- "because that's where the money is." When that day comes, the credibility of the GOP will turn upon whether or not it joined in the theft. http://spectator.org/archives/2012/11/28/claptrap-about-compromise
Granny says dey better not try an' cut her Medicare or dey liable to draw back a bloody nub... It's not just taxes: Benefit cuts divide Democrats November 28, 2012 WASHINGTON (AP) It's not just about taxes. There's another big obstacle to overcome as Congress and President Barack Obama work to skirt the fiscal cliff: deep divisions among Senate Democrats over whether to consider cuts to popular benefit programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
Ya think? So how many tax increases were there between LBJ and Obama care? Then count how many deficit ballooning tax cuts we've had. And realize your post is totally backwards. It's that parasite feeding debt bomb tax cuts that Congress loves to pass.
Addin' to the debt to reduce the debt???... Why Obama is pushing for stimulus in 'fiscal cliff' deal 30 Nov.`12 - President Obama's opening offer in 'fiscal cliff' talks includes $255 billion in stimulus spending tax cuts, incentives, and more. It could be a bargaining ploy or a bid to offset rising taxes on the rich. See also: Cliff fight may knock out December rally - In normal times, next week's slew of U.S. economic data could be a springboard for a December rally in the stock market.
Republicans will not vote for tax increases because of their pledge to Grover Norquist so we will fall off the fiscal cliff and taxes will go up for everyone while the republicans will pretend to be not breaking their pledge to never vote to increase taxes. Except they already did over a year ago when they voted for the legislation that has led to the fiscal cliff. I don't know what is up with them, they vote a year ago for legislation that raises taxes and then act like they had nothing at all to do with it. The only explanation is that they operate only in real time, like computers without hard disks that are continually rebooted, nothing they did in the past has anything to do with them now.
It is "eveyone" who keeps electing these thieves to congress. Don't you think "everyone" should pay the price for it? I do. Maybe we'll stop voting in these people over and over again.
Really? From NPR The Value Of Taxing The Wealthy: $56 Billion http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/11/156577573/the-value-of-taxing-the-wealthy-56-billion
Granny says spendin' more money to balance the budget makes about as much sense as havin' more guns to bring about gun control... Balancing the Budget: The President Asked for Money for Stimulating the Economy December 20, 2012 Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said, We have to make sure that the country is expanding with stimulus spending, when asked Thursday what year his fiscal plan would balance the budget.
Well Plan "B" has failed. So what now? The bond and stock market are tanking. Business is on hold. Accountants are in a frenzy. The house is going home for Christmas (and so will the Senate). obama will go to hawaii. The poor uneducated (which is most americans) will be in the malls spending, not knowing that they are going to have real small paychecks soon. Already the seniors have been notified they will have less starting next year. obama care starts to kick in and we all get to feel the effects of higher costs and worse care. Santa will be grounded because his reindeer are anatomally incorrect.(Reindeer are actually females.) I say let's go over the cliff. The Democrats will get all that they want, which was, the tax rates under Bill Clinton and repeal of the Bush tax cuts. Republicans still control the House and can refuse to raise the debt ceiling. Everybody gets screwed and can go off into oblivion will a smile on their face. Whats wrong with that? For me, Christmas is all payed. All I did was cut my spending in half from normal. None of kids are recieving anything and bought only for the grandkids and if any of my grandkids complain I will tell them to call and thank obama.
When will this fiscal cliff happen? It could be again fear mongering as we've seen lots of times over the past eleven years. Will it happen when 2012 ends and 2013 begins, or will it be 13 january 2013?, could also be the day the FED was started on 23 december 1913 so can happen on 23 december 2013, another 'special' date. They keep pushing on the masses on and on. Keep them in fear, keep them busy with politics, make them more depressed. This is all psychological warfare (add up: Y2k, 9/11, H1N1, credit crunch, meteor impact, vaccination rounds, fiscal cliff, end of the world 21 december 2012, more of this stuff will come over 2013 and more chaos and political change, psywar, and worse economy.
I get your disgust with the Republican House, but you seem kind of confused on why. Grover Norquist has nothing to do with this. In fact, Norquist gave his stamp of approval to the "Plan B" that fell apart. So apparently, House Republicans are not in Norquist's thrall.
Well, I posted that before plan B, but I stick by it. Republicans are not in thrall to Norquist himself but his ideology of rejecting any and all tax increases regardless, which has grown into a monster no one can control. Norquist was dissembling in his support for plan B and everyone knows it. My contention was that the republicans had already agreed to increase taxes some months ago by voting for the fiscal cliff legislation. While they can construe it all they want as not being a vote to raise taxes, it was a vote that they made which has lead directly to the huge tax increases scheduled for January 1. Given their record it is fairly impossible to think that republicans in the house could pass any fiscal legislation that would also pass the Senate or not be vetoed by the President. They have really put Boehner in an impossible situation. The house republicans are imploding. If Boehner put the already passed Senate bill up for a vote it would likely pass the house with a combination of votes from moderate republicans and democrats. The 150 or so radicals of both parties would vote no. It would set a tone for the next congress which might actually get things done.
I think Norquist was quite clear. He doesn't need to dissemble because he already doesn't care about the media and left image of him. The simple fact is that Norquist recognizes that Plan B was not a tax increase, anymore than the votes for tax cuts that expired were tax increases (although that seems to be your position). However you are correct that the House Republicans are imploding and they've put Boehner and themselves in an impossible situation. I'm still shocked at how they are handling it. These so called Tea Partiers look like they are about to deliver the largest tax increase in our nation's history.
That is my position, not seems to be. Voting to let the tax cuts expire is no different than voting for tax increases. Regardless of anything else their votes for the fiscal cliff legislation were votes for taxes to increase on January 1. To deny that is to deny that the past is real. Norquist agrees with my position by his argument that plan B is not a tax increase. Deliberately ignoring that his position is predicated on the fiscal cliff vote that raises all taxes is where the dissembling come in. It was the tea party that planted this bomb and lit the fuse so many months ago. Now they seem intent on letting it go off. They appear content to emasculate the party leaders in the process. What this will get them is beyond me. The best result I can see is that tea partiers will have zero chance of getting elected again to any office anywhere ever again by a citizenry that is more pragmatic than anything else. Perhaps they see this too and seek a pyrrhic victory but I doubt that, most likely they are so convinced in the insularity of their circles that they truly believe their support to be universal, deluded as that is.
That really doesn't make any sense. That's like saying that the Congress that originally voted for the Bush tax cuts didn't actually vote for tax cuts, they voted for an increase, since the cuts were due to expire in 10 years. I think they are damaging the ability of the Republican Party to take power in 2014 and 2016. It looks like it's clear sailing for the Democrats unless the House Republicans get their act together in the next few days and vote for a tax cut (or what you would call, a tax increase!).
Well those people did not vote for a tax increase, just a temporary tax cut. That is far different from the current congress, which voted explicitly to not extend the Bush tax cuts any longer, thus increasing taxes from their current level. You could argue that voting for the fiscal cliff deal was not a vote to increase taxes but that would require an admission that the expiration of the Bush tax cuts are not a tax increase, a position that the republicans have never expressed but have taken great pains to suggest as such a horrific increase in taxes that it would bring about the economic ruin of the republic. What I would call a modification to a scheduled tax increase that they already explicitly voted for. Any failure to pass legislation that reduces the scheduled tax increase before the deadline is entirely the fault of the house republicans. The Senate already holds the high ground, having passed a bill months ago that would continue the tax cuts for the middle class. All Boehner has to do is bring the senate bill to the floor for a vote and the entire crises will pass. January 1 will most likely come with no bill from the house. The house republicans will bear all the blame, tea party members in particular. The people will not forget this and they will not forgive. Despite the gerrymandering of the state legislatures the republicans will lose control of the house, possibly for a decade, probably for a generation.
I wonder why none of you talk about Reid and obama who refuse to address the entitlement issues. As far as I can see, the Bush tax cuts, were only passed with an expiration date demanded by Democrats. They were extended with the understanding that they would expire in January. Draconian measures were put in place to force ALL to face up to the issues of a compromise on taxes and spending cuts and facing the issues of entitlement programs and tax overhaul. Well kiddies the time has come. It is time WE THE PEOPLE pay our bills and reduce our debt. Rich people don't care if they have to pay higher taxes, in fact they will have accountants to do their taxes, and figure how to get around them. WE all say we want to pass on a better tomorrow for our children. (The same argument my greedy parents generation use to say but grabbed all they could get in freebies and put the load on us) I say "over the cliff" . It's time to pay up. After all, all we will be doing is going back to the Clinton tax rates. Isn't that what all on the left want?
