The Three R's: Reichwing Republican R...
ZCs

New York, NY

#796 Nov 24, 2012
Rant!

The No. 1 consequence of Obama’s re-election is that it essentially guarantees his signature health care law will be implemented. And not everyone is happy about it. Zane Tankel owns about 40 Applebees franchises. He says that as a result of the law’s penalties on employers who don’t offer health insurance to their workforce “we won’t build more restaurants, we won’t hire more people.” John Metz owns about 40 Denny’s outlets, several Dairy Queens, and is the brains behind the Hurricane Grill & Wings chain is even blunter. He says he’ll be tacking a 5 percent surcharge onto customers’ bills in order to defray the costs of Obamacare.

If you’re not happy about that surcharge, he’s got an answer for you. Cranky customers “can reduce the amount of tip they give to the server, who is the primary beneficiary of Obamacare.”

These guys are being jerks, but they’re helpfully bringing to light what was obscured during the original debate over the health care bill—rich businessmen don’t like it because it raises their taxes. The Republican Party is very sensitive to the views of rich businessmen, and so they didn’t like the health care bill. The debate, unfortunately, got bogged down in a lot of nonsense about death panels and socialism rather than focusing on the brass tacks stuff that matters. Low-income workers—the kind of people likely to be working as servers at Denny’s—really will see huge benefits from the law. And the kind of people who own dozens of chain restaurant franchises really will suffer, at least a bit.
not quite

Bronx, NY

#797 Nov 26, 2012
ZCs wrote:
Rant!
The No. 1 consequence of Obama’s re-election is that it essentially guarantees his signature health care law will be implemented. And not everyone is happy about it. Zane Tankel owns about 40 Applebees franchises. He says that as a result of the law’s penalties on employers who don’t offer health insurance to their workforce “we won’t build more restaurants, we won’t hire more people.” John Metz owns about 40 Denny’s outlets, several Dairy Queens, and is the brains behind the Hurricane Grill & Wings chain is even blunter. He says he’ll be tacking a 5 percent surcharge onto customers’ bills in order to defray the costs of Obamacare.
If you’re not happy about that surcharge, he’s got an answer for you. Cranky customers “can reduce the amount of tip they give to the server, who is the primary beneficiary of Obamacare.”
These guys are being jerks, but they’re helpfully bringing to light what was obscured during the original debate over the health care bill—rich businessmen don’t like it because it raises their taxes. The Republican Party is very sensitive to the views of rich businessmen, and so they didn’t like the health care bill. The debate, unfortunately, got bogged down in a lot of nonsense about death panels and socialism rather than focusing on the brass tacks stuff that matters. Low-income workers—the kind of people likely to be working as servers at Denny’s—really will see huge benefits from the law. And the kind of people who own dozens of chain restaurant franchises really will suffer, at least a bit.
There's more rants to come, the Romney losers are in full meltdown mode.
LOL!!
ZCs

Brooklyn, NY

#798 Nov 27, 2012
Let's all do The Romney Rant!!

CANTON, OH—According to eyewitnesses at the scene, an unkempt and thoroughly disheveled Mitt Romney gave an impassioned campaign speech Monday to a group of bewildered shoppers inside a local Safeway.

Sources confirmed the filth-covered former presidential candidate walked into the store unannounced early yesterday evening, went to the store’s cereal aisle, and started to play Kid Rock’s “Born Free” on a portable boom box, enthusiastically waving and pointing to no one in particular.

As customers began to recognize the 2012 GOP nominee through his scraggly beard and uncombed hair, Romney reportedly picked up a can of Pringles from a nearby shelf, held it near his mouth, and began loudly addressing the growing crowd of confused onlookers.

“How are we feeling out there, friends?” said Romney, who paused briefly as though waiting for applause from the baffled and completely silent supermarket shoppers.“First and foremost, thank you so much for coming out here today and for your continued support throughout the campaign. We’re making our voices heard across the country—that’s for sure!”

“Together, we’re going to bring some real change to Washington!” added Romney, who staggered slightly as he spoke but maintained his balance.

Witnesses told reporters that Romney walked around the store barefoot as he gave his speech, wearing only a pair of dirt-caked jeans and a wrinkled dress shirt covered in food stains.

Safeway patrons also said the former Massachusetts governor gave off an incredibly strong odor and appeared to have gone “days, possibly weeks” without bathing.

“President Obama is trying to distract everyone from his record, because he knows his policies have done nothing to rebuild our economy,” said Romney, eating from a large box of croutons he had taken from the salad dressing aisle.“My five-point plan will scale back the job-killing policies of the current administration, promote small business, cut tax burdens, and put Americans back to work again.”

Sources said a weeping Ann Romney at one point attempted to pull her husband out of the store by his arm but was angrily rebuffed, with the 65-year-old retired businessman yelling that he was “trying to do [his] job here.”

Romney then reportedly climbed atop a checkout counter, rolled up the torn sleeves of his shirt, and started calling on different customers for questions about his tax policy.

“And now, I’d like to welcome on stage the best decision I ever made aside from marrying Ann—the next vice president of the United States, Paul Ryan!” Romney exclaimed as he grabbed the hand of a nearby cashier and attempted to pull her onto the counter to stand alongside him.“From the moment we take office, Paul and I are going to fight for each and every one of you and restore the promise of this great nation.”

According to reports, Safeway employees finally called local authorities when Romney attempted to grab an infant from the arms of her mother “for a quick photo op.”

After three police officers managed, with some effort, to subdue Romney in the produce section, he could be heard shrieking incoherently at the top of his lungs for several moments before he finally trailed off, muttering about a plan to “create 12 million jobs by the end of [his] first term.”

“We’re going all the way to the White House!” Romney loudly proclaimed in the parking lot as he was gently guided into the back of a police car.“Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America!”
ZCs

New York, NY

#799 Dec 1, 2012
Rant!!!

Every day, more Republicans in Congress are backing away from Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquit’s anti-tax pledge. For more than 20 years, the pledge, which stipulates that those who sign will never — under any circumstance — vote to raise taxes while in Congress, has virtually been a requirement for Congressional Republicans. According to ATR, just 16 of the 234 House Republicans and 6 of the 45 Senate Republicans that comprise the 113th Congress did not sign the pledge.

However, the pledge may not have the staying power it once did. As of this writing, more than a dozen House Republicans — including Majority Leader Eric Cantor — and 10 GOP senators have distanced themselves from the pledge to one degree or another. Here are just a few examples or what members had to say:

— Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH):“The only pledge that keeps me up at night is the pledge I owe to the people of New Hampshire and our country to work as hard as I can to make sure America doesn’t go bankrupt.”

– Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA):“I care more about my country than I do about a 20-year-old pledge ... I don’t worry about that because I care too much about my country. I care a lot more about it than I do Grover Norquist.”

– Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN):“Well, I’m not obligated on the pledge. I made Tennesseans aware, I was just elected, that the only thing I’m honoring is the oath I take when I’m sworn in this January.”

– Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA):“When I go to the constituents, it’s not about that pledge. It’s about trying to solve problems.”

– Rep. Peter King (R-NY):“A pledge is good at the time you sign it ... In 1941, I would have voted to declare war on Japan. But each Congress is a new Congress. And I don’t think you can have a rule that you’re never going to raise taxes or that you’re never going to lower taxes. I don’t want to rule anything out.”

– Rep. Timothy Johnson (R-IL):“I would never in a million years have considered this as some kind of a locked-in-granite pledge. Frankly, I didn’t even remember it.
ILAL

Bronx, NY

#800 Dec 1, 2012
ZCs wrote:
Rant!!!
Every day, more Republicans in Congress are backing away from Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquit’s anti-tax pledge. For more than 20 years, the pledge, which stipulates that those who sign will never — under any circumstance — vote to raise taxes while in Congress, has virtually been a requirement for Congressional Republicans. According to ATR, just 16 of the 234 House Republicans and 6 of the 45 Senate Republicans that comprise the 113th Congress did not sign the pledge.
However, the pledge may not have the staying power it once did. As of this writing, more than a dozen House Republicans — including Majority Leader Eric Cantor — and 10 GOP senators have distanced themselves from the pledge to one degree or another. Here are just a few examples or what members had to say:
— Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH):“The only pledge that keeps me up at night is the pledge I owe to the people of New Hampshire and our country to work as hard as I can to make sure America doesn’t go bankrupt.”
– Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA):“I care more about my country than I do about a 20-year-old pledge ... I don’t worry about that because I care too much about my country. I care a lot more about it than I do Grover Norquist.”
– Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN):“Well, I’m not obligated on the pledge. I made Tennesseans aware, I was just elected, that the only thing I’m honoring is the oath I take when I’m sworn in this January.”
– Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA):“When I go to the constituents, it’s not about that pledge. It’s about trying to solve problems.”
– Rep. Peter King (R-NY):“A pledge is good at the time you sign it ... In 1941, I would have voted to declare war on Japan. But each Congress is a new Congress. And I don’t think you can have a rule that you’re never going to raise taxes or that you’re never going to lower taxes. I don’t want to rule anything out.”
– Rep. Timothy Johnson (R-IL):“I would never in a million years have considered this as some kind of a locked-in-granite pledge. Frankly, I didn’t even remember it.
They all knew when they signed it, it was not legally binding.
Nordquist represents a special interest group and all of them knew it.
Teddy R

San Francisco, CA

#802 Dec 3, 2012
ILAL wrote:
<quoted text>
Nordquist represents a special interest group and all of them knew it.
Yeah. A special interest group called "American taxpayers."

How shocking is that.
ILAL

Bronx, NY

#803 Dec 12, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah. A special interest group called "American taxpayers."
How shocking is that.
Wrong, corporate types who get $4 BILLION in government subsidies each year in a business making record profits (Big Oil) and the wealthy who never liked to pay their fair share of taxes, the 1-2%, not the 98% who have always carried the tax burden.
Stop watching Fox News.
ILAL

Bronx, NY

#804 Dec 12, 2012
ZCs wrote:
Rant!!!
Every day, more Republicans in Congress are backing away from Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquit’s anti-tax pledge. For more than 20 years, the pledge, which stipulates that those who sign will never — under any circumstance — vote to raise taxes while in Congress, has virtually been a requirement for Congressional Republicans. According to ATR, just 16 of the 234 House Republicans and 6 of the 45 Senate Republicans that comprise the 113th Congress did not sign the pledge.
However, the pledge may not have the staying power it once did. As of this writing, more than a dozen House Republicans — including Majority Leader Eric Cantor — and 10 GOP senators have distanced themselves from the pledge to one degree or another. Here are just a few examples or what members had to say:
— Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH):“The only pledge that keeps me up at night is the pledge I owe to the people of New Hampshire and our country to work as hard as I can to make sure America doesn’t go bankrupt.”
– Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA):“I care more about my country than I do about a 20-year-old pledge ... I don’t worry about that because I care too much about my country. I care a lot more about it than I do Grover Norquist.”
– Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN):“Well, I’m not obligated on the pledge. I made Tennesseans aware, I was just elected, that the only thing I’m honoring is the oath I take when I’m sworn in this January.”
– Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA):“When I go to the constituents, it’s not about that pledge. It’s about trying to solve problems.”
– Rep. Peter King (R-NY):“A pledge is good at the time you sign it ... In 1941, I would have voted to declare war on Japan. But each Congress is a new Congress. And I don’t think you can have a rule that you’re never going to raise taxes or that you’re never going to lower taxes. I don’t want to rule anything out.”
– Rep. Timothy Johnson (R-IL):“I would never in a million years have considered this as some kind of a locked-in-granite pledge. Frankly, I didn’t even remember it.
They're still ranting like crybabies because they lost.
ZCs

Brooklyn, NY

#805 Dec 12, 2012
Rant!!!!!!!!!!

It really is no secret that Republicans want to make it harder for people to vote. Some are even upfront about it.

In 2011, Mike Bennett, then a Republican senator from Bradenton, Fla., told his colleagues during a debate on an elections bill that voting shouldn’t be easy:“The [African] people in the desert, who literally walk two and three hundred miles so they can have the opportunity to do what we do, and we want to make it more convenient?”(His Africa comments were rated a “Pants on Fire” falsehood by PolitiFact.)

Well, Bennett got his wish. In 2012, Florida voters resembled those in the Third World. In a disastrous election that caused President Barack Obama to remark that,“we have to fix that,” people in Miami-Dade County waited up to seven hours to vote during a contracted early-voting period prescribed by that 2011 election bill that became law. On Election Day, some voters were in line past midnight. And get this, Bennett is the newly elected supervisor of elections in Manatee County and has since defended the law.

Then there’s Charlie Webster, who was Maine’s GOP chairman when he made the paranoid charge last year that the state should repeal Maine’s same-day registration because it’s “how the Democrats have managed to steal elections.” Webster’s deluded assertion to the Portland Press Herald was that Maine’s same-day voter registration allowed Democrats to bus in “Job Corps people,” referring to a federal job training program for low-income young people.“[Democrats] move ‘em around to wherever they have a tough seat,” Webster claimed.

Equal frankness came from New Hampshire Republican lawmaker William O’Brien, who, as state House Speaker last year, pushed for a law to end the state’s same-day voter registration and prohibit most college students from using their school addresses to vote. He was caught on tape telling a Tea Party group that the change was needed because young people end up “voting as a liberal.” The effort failed.

Since the midterm elections of 2010, almost every state where Republicans took political control made a concerted push to make voting harder for groups whose demographics lean Democratic, such as minorities and college students. Republicans publicly claim the rules are to prevent voter fraud — a problem that essentially does not exist for in-person voting. But Jim Greer, the disgraced and indicted former Florida Republican Party chairman, admitted that Florida’s early voting limits were to tamp down Democratic votes, not due to any problem of voter fraud.
ZCs

Brooklyn, NY

#806 Dec 12, 2012
Rant!

Grouchy old Sen. John “Walnuts!” McCain is always mad, and usually there is one thing in particular that he is mad at at a time. Like for a while it was Ultimate Fighting, for some reason. No one knew why, but he devoted literally all of his time as a senator to eradicating it, until a new thing made him mad and he just completely and totally forgot about UFC. Then for a long time the thing he was mad at was “George W. Bush,” and that’s when everyone grew to love him, but then he moved on from that, too, and he was mad at Iran for a little while, but mostly it’s just been Barack Obama, for the last few years, who really gets his goat. Now he’s narrowed his focus further, and the one thing in this world that he hates most is the prospect of Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice becoming secretary of state.

This is why John McCain, who has been on the Senate Armed Forces Committee since his first term in the Senate in 1987 (he’s currently its ranking Republican), will seek a seat on the other major Senate foreign policy committee next year: the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The Armed Services Committee oversees the Pentagon, you see, but the Foreign Relations Committee oversees the State Department, and that’s where McCain knows Rice is headed.(Unless he successfully blocks her nomination, with his obsequious little weasel of a sidekick Lindsey Graham, that is.) McCain will be much better positioned to constantly badger would-be Secretary Rice, and accuse her of dishonesty and incompetence and probably treason, once he is given his new seat.

John McCain is furious with Rice for her appearances on the Sunday shows the weekend after the attack on Benghazi, where she 1) delivered CIA-derived administration talking points suggesting that the attack happened during, or as an outgrowth of, a protest demonstration outside the consulate, something everyone believed to be true at the time, though it later (later!) turned out to be false, and 2) didn’t say “terrorism” or “terror” enough. Because of those dumb Sunday show appearances, McCain has devoted months to attempting to destroy her chances of being named secretary of state. It’s very petty and silly and rather blatantly hypocritical, which is to say it is a John McCain crusade.

He has also repeatedly distorted and mischaracterized her remarks and in focusing solely on her has largely succeeded in distracting entirely from every other lingering question related to the Benghazi attack and whatever intelligence failures and operational missteps led to it.
ILAL

Bronx, NY

#807 Dec 12, 2012
ZCs wrote:
Rant!
Grouchy old Sen. John “Walnuts!” McCain is always mad, and usually there is one thing in particular that he is mad at at a time. Like for a while it was Ultimate Fighting, for some reason. No one knew why, but he devoted literally all of his time as a senator to eradicating it, until a new thing made him mad and he just completely and totally forgot about UFC. Then for a long time the thing he was mad at was “George W. Bush,” and that’s when everyone grew to love him, but then he moved on from that, too, and he was mad at Iran for a little while, but mostly it’s just been Barack Obama, for the last few years, who really gets his goat. Now he’s narrowed his focus further, and the one thing in this world that he hates most is the prospect of Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice becoming secretary of state.
This is why John McCain, who has been on the Senate Armed Forces Committee since his first term in the Senate in 1987 (he’s currently its ranking Republican), will seek a seat on the other major Senate foreign policy committee next year: the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The Armed Services Committee oversees the Pentagon, you see, but the Foreign Relations Committee oversees the State Department, and that’s where McCain knows Rice is headed.(Unless he successfully blocks her nomination, with his obsequious little weasel of a sidekick Lindsey Graham, that is.) McCain will be much better positioned to constantly badger would-be Secretary Rice, and accuse her of dishonesty and incompetence and probably treason, once he is given his new seat.
John McCain is furious with Rice for her appearances on the Sunday shows the weekend after the attack on Benghazi, where she 1) delivered CIA-derived administration talking points suggesting that the attack happened during, or as an outgrowth of, a protest demonstration outside the consulate, something everyone believed to be true at the time, though it later (later!) turned out to be false, and 2) didn’t say “terrorism” or “terror” enough. Because of those dumb Sunday show appearances, McCain has devoted months to attempting to destroy her chances of being named secretary of state. It’s very petty and silly and rather blatantly hypocritical, which is to say it is a John McCain crusade.
He has also repeatedly distorted and mischaracterized her remarks and in focusing solely on her has largely succeeded in distracting entirely from every other lingering question related to the Benghazi attack and whatever intelligence failures and operational missteps led to it.
The story of an old fart trying to be relevant, he's got nothing.
ZCs

New York, NY

#808 Dec 15, 2012
Rant!!!!

“Mommy!” a little girl called out, and a mother shrieked with relief and joy.
Where parents who did not see the face or the name were taken aside and asked for their own name and the name of their child.
“A process of elimination unfortunately,” said Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance.

Where those heart-torn parents who hoped—harder than they had ever hoped for anything before—to go home with their child were instead assigned a state trooper to assist them and ensure their privacy.

Where those parents no doubt kept hoping against all hope as the youngsters who had been pronounced dead at the school still lay there as the crime scene was processed and the formal identifications were made.

The poll comes from the McClatchy News Service and was conducted by Marist. It asked respondents what they would and would not support as part of a grand fiscal bargain. The top-line results are typical: People first and foremost want to see taxes go up on the high end.

But here’s the good stuff. Breaking down results to Republican respondents only, their positions are as follows. By 47-37, they oppose letting the current payroll tax cut expire (an Obama position). By 68-26, they’re against cutting Medicare spending. By 61-33, they oppose cutting Medicaid spending (yes, Medicaid spending!). By 66-28, they’re against eliminating the home-mortgage interest deduction. By 72-25, they oppose eliminating the charitable contribution deduction. And by 56-44, less overwhelming but still very much a landslide in political terms, they just say no to raising the Medicare eligibility age.

Please read those numbers over one more time. That’s Republicans. Supporting “liberal” positions by huge margins. Okay, the two deductions, for mortgage and charity, aren’t necessarily liberal positions only, but in the current context, it’s prominent Republicans like Paul Ryan and John McCain and others who keep saying that the only tax reform they’ll consider is the type in which marginal rates are lowered and these loopholes are closed. So even there, Republican voters are opposing their own leaders. But look at that Medicaid number in particular. Kind of amazing. Gee, do you suppose that Republicans, who do tend a bit more toward the geriatric end of the age scale, understand that Medicaid pays for nursing-home care for middle-class people?
ZCs

New York, NY

#810 Dec 22, 2012
Rant!!!!
The main thing that has held Republicans together philosophically is the belief in holding down taxes. Not one of them in Congress has voted for a significant increase in more than two decades.
Now that very issue is tearing the GOP apart and making it an all-but-ungovernable majority for Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) to lead in the House.
Disarray is a word much overused in politics. But it barely begins to describe the current state of chaos and incoherence as Republicans come to terms with electoral defeat and try to regroup against a year-end deadline to avert a fiscal crisis.
The presidential election was fought in large measure over the question of whether some Americans should pay more in taxes. Republicans lost that argument with the voters, who polls show are strongly in favor of raising rates for the wealthy.
But a sizable contingent within the GOP doesn’t see it that way and is unwilling to declare defeat on a tenet that so defines them. Nor are they prepared to settle for getting the best deal they can, as a means of avoiding the tax hikes on virtually everyone else that would take effect if no deal is reached.
When Boehner tried to bend even a little, by proposing to raise rates on income over $1 million, his party humiliated him, forcing him Thursday night to abruptly cancel a vote on his “Plan B.”
“We had a number of our members who just really didn’t want to be perceived as having raised taxes,” Boehner said Friday.“That was the real issue.”

“You have to make an argument. You have to go out there and engage. You can’t just simply assert a position,” said GOP pollster David Winston, who advises the House leadership.“Part of the dynamic for Boehner is that he’s trying to have the debate over economic policies that should have occurred during the election, and he also has to deal with this piece of legislation.”
As long as there has been a Republican Party, there has been at least a faction within it that has taken a hard-line stance on taxes, Pollack said. But it has not always had the upper hand.
Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president, was also the first to put a national income tax into place, as a temporary means of funding the Civil War. Even then, House Ways and Means Chairman Thaddeus Stevens (now enjoying a return to popular consciousness as Tommy Lee Jones’s character in the movie “Lincoln”) denounced the idea of a graduated rate structure as a “strange way to punish men because they are rich.”
The 16th Amendment, which established the constitutionality of the federal income tax in 1913, was proposed by a Republican, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Nelson W. Aldrich. But it was decried by another one, Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts, as “confiscation of property under the guise of taxation” and “a pillage of a class.”
The divisions went on until the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan, who ran as an advocate of tax-cutting supply-side economics.
In 1990, Newt Gingrich established himself as the de facto head of his party in the House, when he stood up to a president of his own party and led the opposition to George H.W. Bush’s tax increases.
Gingrich insisted in an interview Friday that the Republicans still have leverage, if they are willing to fight hard enough.
“They need a strategy, not just a way of getting through this week,” he said.
ZCs

New York, NY

#811 Dec 22, 2012
Rant!!!

Former Republican National Committee chairman and MSNBC commentator Michael Steele on Friday said he found the press conference led by National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre "very haunting and very disturbing."

Asked by MSNBC anchor Thomas Roberts for his immediate response to the NRA presser, Steele initially appeared speechless.

“I don’t even know where to begin," Steele said. "As a supporter of the Second Amendment and a supporter of the NRA, even though I’m not a member of the NRA, I just found it very haunting and very disturbing that our country now, that are talking about arming our teachers and our principals in classrooms. What does that say about us? And I do not believe that's where the American people want to go. I do not believe that is the response that should be coming out of the tragedy in Newtown."
reality bites

Elmwood Park, NJ

#812 Dec 22, 2012
ZCs wrote:
Rant!!!
Former Republican National Committee chairman and MSNBC commentator Michael Steele on Friday said he found the press conference led by National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre "very haunting and very disturbing."
Asked by MSNBC anchor Thomas Roberts for his immediate response to the NRA presser, Steele initially appeared speechless.
“I don’t even know where to begin," Steele said. "As a supporter of the Second Amendment and a supporter of the NRA, even though I’m not a member of the NRA, I just found it very haunting and very disturbing that our country now, that are talking about arming our teachers and our principals in classrooms. What does that say about us? And I do not believe that's where the American people want to go. I do not believe that is the response that should be coming out of the tragedy in Newtown."
Lapierre is a fruitcake.
ZCs

New York, NY

#813 Dec 29, 2012
Rant!!!

On Friday morning, outgoing Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) attributed the GOP’s reluctance to reach a balanced deal that could avert the so-called fiscal cliff to Grover Norquist’s pledge, which prevents Republicans from supporting a tax increase. President Obama has called on lawmakers to pass a package that maintains the Bush tax cuts for families earning less than $250,000 a year, though Republicans have thus far ignored his call and unsuccessfully attempted to advance a much more modest measure that preserved tax breaks for incomes under a million dollars.

Appearing on CNN’s Starting Point, Snowe — who backs a deal that would maintain current tax rates for families earning $400,000 and less — called on Republicans and Democrats to compromise, but noted that the no-tax pledge may be holding them back:

ALI VELSHI (HOST): Talk to me about this. I certainly don’t want to demonize people who ideologically believe taxes shouldn’t go up on anyone or don’t want taxes to go up because they think it’s damaging to the economy. I think there are a lot of Americans who are quite prepared to demonize people who will not change their view or cast a vote because it offends Grover Norquist. What role do the pledges play in our inability to compromise?

SNOWE: Well, I’m certain it does play a role. I’ve never signed these pledges because my obligation to the people who elected me and that’s the way it should be for each member of Congress, because times change. The circumstances change, you have to address the issue at hand. It is important to have extending the tax cuts for especially the middle income but secondly to put spending cuts on the table.
Teddy R

Reston, VA

#814 Dec 29, 2012
Zero Comments the Racist Serial Cut-n-Paste Plagiarist wrote:
Rant!!!
... put spending cuts on the table.
... put spending cuts on the table.
... put spending cuts on the table.
... put spending cuts on the table.
... put spending cuts on the table.
... put spending cuts on the table.
... put spending cuts on the table.
... put spending cuts on the table.
Signs of intelligent life on the planet.

Couldn't agree more.

But what does this narcissistic amateur Incompetent-in-Chief do instead, as he drives the ship of State over the fiscal cliff??

ISSUES AN EXECUTIVE ORDER GIVING JOE BIDEN AND CONGRESS A PAY RAISE!!!

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-ord...

Bend over and take it like the fools you are for re-electing this fraud, America.

Maybe be a little smarter next time, eh?
ZCs

New York, NY

#815 Dec 29, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Signs of intelligent life on the planet.
Couldn't agree more.
But what does this narcissistic amateur Incompetent-in-Chief do instead, as he drives the ship of State over the fiscal cliff??
ISSUES AN EXECUTIVE ORDER GIVING JOE BIDEN AND CONGRESS A PAY RAISE!!!
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-ord...
Bend over and take it like the fools you are for re-electing this fraud, America.
Maybe be a little smarter next time, eh?
Not different than the 8 years you dummies bent over for Bush.
Teddy R

Reston, VA

#816 Dec 29, 2012
Zero Comments the Racist Serial Cut-n-Paste Plagiarist wrote:
<quoted text>
Not different than the 8 years you dummies bent over for Bush.
Hmmm. Let me see if I understand your argument here correctly.

You are defending the steadfast worship by you and your fellow Obamabot rubes of the demonstrated incompetent amateur narcissist who currently occupies the office of POTUS by saying you're being just as stupid as those who supported the idiot Bush for 8 years?

"We're right because we're being just as stupid as the other side."

Well. That's a novel line, but one I can't really argue with. Yes - I fully agree you're looking every bit as stupid as Bush supporters.

Congratulations. Did you really come up with that argument all by yourself? Not something I would have expected from the average 10-year-old intellect.
reality bites

Elmwood Park, NJ

#817 Dec 30, 2012
ZCs wrote:
Rant!!!
On Friday morning, outgoing Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) attributed the GOP’s reluctance to reach a balanced deal that could avert the so-called fiscal cliff to Grover Norquist’s pledge, which prevents Republicans from supporting a tax increase. President Obama has called on lawmakers to pass a package that maintains the Bush tax cuts for families earning less than $250,000 a year, though Republicans have thus far ignored his call and unsuccessfully attempted to advance a much more modest measure that preserved tax breaks for incomes under a million dollars.
Appearing on CNN’s Starting Point, Snowe — who backs a deal that would maintain current tax rates for families earning $400,000 and less — called on Republicans and Democrats to compromise, but noted that the no-tax pledge may be holding them back:
ALI VELSHI (HOST): Talk to me about this. I certainly don’t want to demonize people who ideologically believe taxes shouldn’t go up on anyone or don’t want taxes to go up because they think it’s damaging to the economy. I think there are a lot of Americans who are quite prepared to demonize people who will not change their view or cast a vote because it offends Grover Norquist. What role do the pledges play in our inability to compromise?
SNOWE: Well, I’m certain it does play a role. I’ve never signed these pledges because my obligation to the people who elected me and that’s the way it should be for each member of Congress, because times change. The circumstances change, you have to address the issue at hand. It is important to have extending the tax cuts for especially the middle income but secondly to put spending cuts on the table.
They're lying and still want the millionaire / billionaire protection racket to keep rolling along.
Let them get rid of the $4 BILLION Subsidy that goes to the oil industry, an industry that makes a profit.
Stop giving tax dollars away in foreign aid.
If they do that, then they're doing something, everything else they propose is a joke and they know it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jackson-Heights Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 1 hr cpeter1313 311,191
HILLARY will be THE BEST PRESIDENT EVER (Dec '14) 1 hr DILLIGAF 10,728
Add a word, Drop a word (Dec '09) 2 hr Princess Hey 15,072
Drop a Word, Add a Word (Jan '10) 2 hr Princess Hey 14,229
News Home Depot worker's 'America Was Never Great' h... 2 hr TRUMPcard 5
Time to go? (Jun '15) 3 hr Into The Night 11,139
Yankee talk back 4, or is it 5 (Aug '08) 4 hr NYStateOfMind 328,518
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Jackson-Heights Mortgages