Obama Is Against a Compromise on Bush Tax Cuts

[Ban Hammer 13,360]

#######, now it's $200,000?

how's that hope and change working for you?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

There were attempts to compromise on both to get more Republicans on board. But even if a Republican wanted to, it would be basically a career ending decision as they would find themselves under the Tea Party express.

Of course, if you don't believe something is a problem in the first place, then why would you agree to a solution?

There were attempts to pull off one or two senators, or a handful of House members, but no real serious attempt at finding consensus legislation. Just look at the House, where Nancy had virtually declared martial law, soon after the Democrats gained control of the House.

The new speaker has all but refused to bring any bill to the floor under open rules, where any member may offer an amendment to the bill under consideration. The rules committee would permit few if any substantive amendments of any flavor to be offered on the floor.

Republican were only getting one bite of the apple, the motion to recommit, and they were passing those amendments regularly. That pissed off Nancy enough, that they reworked the rules through the parliamentarian, to the point where all motions to recommit henceforth would be sent back to the legislative committee, and not be considered in the committee of the whole, as was the previous custom. That had the effect of killing the bill, should the motion to recommit pass.

So, going on four years now, Republicans get to complain, and stomp their feet, and use delaying tactics, but in the end, anything that passed on to Bush, or passes on to Obama, has been written behind the Speaker's Office, in that dark putrid swamp that Nancy promised to drain.

[The_Dude 1,142]

There were attempts to pull off one or two senators, or a handful of House members, but no real serious attempt at finding consensus legislation. Just look at the House, where Nancy had virtually declared martial law, soon after the Democrats gained control of the House.

The new speaker has all but refused to bring any bill to the floor under open rules, where any member may offer an amendment to the bill under consideration. The rules committee would permit few if any substantive amendments of any flavor to be offered on the floor.

Republican were only getting one bite of the apple, the motion to recommit, and they were passing those amendments regularly. That pissed off Nancy enough, that they reworked the rules through the parliamentarian, to the point where all motions to recommit henceforth would be sent back to the legislative committee, and not be considered in the committee of the whole, as was the previous custom. That had the effect of killing the bill, should the motion to recommit pass.

So, going on four years now, Republicans get to complain, and stomp their feet, and use delaying tactics, but in the end, anything that passed on to Bush, or passes on to Obama, has been written behind the Speaker's Office, in that dark putrid swamp that Nancy promised to drain.

A consensus in politics? Seriously Bill? Did you just arrive in this country?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

A consensus in politics? Seriously Bill? Did you just arrive in this country?

Happens all the time.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Happens all the time.

On things like declaration of war, pay raises for themselves, and ceremonial proclemations, yes they do. Not so much on highly contested legislature.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

On things like declaration of war, pay raises for themselves, and ceremonial proclemations, yes they do. Not so much on highly contested legislature.

All the more reason to at least make the effort, or in the case of Sacramento, throw all the bums out, bar them from ever serving in any elected office, and start over again with new blood.

[Heracles 417]

All the more reason to at least make the effort, or in the case of Sacramento, throw all the bums out, bar them from ever serving in any elected office, and start over again with new blood.

By the same logic, lets ban all corporations because of Enron. For every one Sacramento type situation, there are 20 Enrons. Oh noes though, you will focus on the Sacramento and claim this is the norm with anything government.

You are right though, lets kick out the bums; henceforth, any small business that is dirty or hires illegals should be shut down [kicked out] too. Who do you think will end up with more losses?

Edited September 8, 2010 by Heracles

[The_Dude 1,142]

All the more reason to at least make the effort, or in the case of Sacramento, throw all the bums out, bar them from ever serving in any elected office, and start over again with new blood.

You can reach a simple consensus, but in American politics, you're never going to get a true one. We are simply too polarized.

I agree that the state politicians in California are pretty horrible. My old rep wasn't too bad (Karen Bass), but the problem is, who are you going to get to replace them? We very well could get an even bigger group of morons. Hell, look at who is running for governor, can you honestly tell me that either of those two candidates looks good? /sigh.

Edited September 8, 2010 by Rob & Mel

[mawilson 2,133]

how's that hope and change working for you?

Well shouldn't it be $200,000 for individuals, $400,000 for married couples?

Otherwise it's a pretty severe marriage penalty.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Well shouldn't it be $200,000 for individuals, $400,000 for married couples?

Otherwise it's a pretty severe marriage penalty.

Doesn't the Marriage Equity Act also expire this year? That would explain the numbers.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-163

Edited September 9, 2010 by ##########