Democrats Push Hard on Fiscal Deal

Democrats Push Hard on Fiscal Deal

There are 407 comments on the Roll Call story from Nov 27, 2012, titled Democrats Push Hard on Fiscal Deal. In it, Roll Call reports that:

Durbin spoke about the future of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid on Tuesday but said those discussions should not be part of the fiscal cliff plan.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Roll Call.

Sheik Yerbouti

Doylestown, PA

#141 Nov 30, 2012
No To Tinkerbell Marriage wrote:
"Democrats Push Hard on Fiscal Deal". Male Democrats have hard ons. For each other. Mostly all queers. Women Dems mostly all ugly bullydykes, with a few exceptions.
You seem to have a very perverted interest in the sex lives of others. Jealous maybe? rethug 'women' are lousy in bed!

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#142 Nov 30, 2012
OH NO YOU Did not wrote:
<quoted text>
Hate much today?
Not at all. You may need a humor infusion.

Since: Dec 07

Spring, TX

#143 Nov 30, 2012
Susan Rice has six-figure investment in controversial Canadian oil pipeline company
8:10 AM 11/29/2012

Oooooooppppppssss!

Tax the rich! You progressives are so fkn hilariouis!!

Investments in Canadian energy and financial companies account for a substantial share of the Rice's reported assets of $23.5 million to $43.5 million, according to federal disclosure reports compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington research group.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#144 Nov 30, 2012
Bluebonnets-Thistle wrote:
Susan Rice has six-figure investment in controversial Canadian oil pipeline company
8:10 AM 11/29/2012
Oooooooppppppssss!
Tax the rich! You progressives are so fkn hilariouis!!
Investments in Canadian energy and financial companies account for a substantial share of the Rice's reported assets of $23.5 million to $43.5 million, according to federal disclosure reports compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington research group.
Tell me Bluemerang, what the hell has Susan Rice's wealth to do with "us progressives"?

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#145 Nov 30, 2012
OH NO YOU Did not wrote:
<quoted text>
This post proves that liberals can be extremely mean and nasty. Plus as I can see very bigoted and biased. You have obviously skipped over barefoot2626 posts because almost all her posts are about sex and hate. I can name you many more of your fellow liberal posters calling Republicans - retards, Rethuglicans, rednecks and many other denigrating names. I could spends days posting all the nastiness of the liberals, but in the end you will never believe it and it not worth it to prove your idiocy, IMO. BTW, why do you hate so much? Did someone hurt you in your childhood?
I will ignore your dimwitted personal insults, so that I may directly address the subject at hand.
I readily admit that anger comes from both sides of the political spectrum on Topix. Most Topix regulars are people who are more emotionally invested in the issues than the average.
However, I believe that there are more righties than lefties on Topix (despite assertions to the contrary), and that the allegation that Topix is run by liberals is twisted and ridiculous.

That said, I think the right wing crazies have the distinct advantage in bigotry, intolerance, and ignorance. I don't believe there is anything on the left to compare with the bizarre right wing fringe on Topix.

Yes, liberals can be mean and nasty. We're all fallible human beings who often let our emotions get away from us. In my case, bigotry based on skin color, ethnicity, and sexual orientation make my blood boil. I wouldn't have it any other way.
proudtobeamerica n

Staten Island, NY

#146 Nov 30, 2012
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>You are making the usual false assumption that those who receive entitlements and other assistance are shiftless, lazy people who want something for nothing. That may explain a tiny handful of abusers of the system. The truth, however, differs from what you imagine. Many millions of people in this country, despite their best efforts, are having trouble making ends meet.
The producers you speak of are doing fine, and will continue to do so. Your mistake, in my opinion, is that you see these other people as parasites, when all many of them need is the basics of life and opportunity. Your "producers" are not a superior species of human. In most cases, they have had the social and economic freedoms that have been denied to those who struggle through life..
I think a lot of this depends on one's world view. As I see it, there are those people who tend toward an "every man for himself" attitude. Then there are others (myself included) who believe people have a moral obligation to look out for one another, and keep their judgements on the back burner.
I'm sure you believe in the concept of personal rsponsibility. I do too, except in cases where people need a hand. I think the American people are at their best when we embrace our similarities, acknowledge our differences, and reach out to one another.
A "moral" obligation Larry?? I have a "moral obligation" to permit the government to take my money anytime they define a new "need" and give it to people or a class of people that have not earned it? I have a moral obligation to assure that the needs and wants of other individuals should be fufilled despite my own moral objections? For example if a single mother wants to have an abortion is it my moral duty to subsidize it? I think not. My labor is not my own? My private property is not my own? It is communal property to be shared for the common good? In other words Larry-you are a socialist. There is no other way to describe you. Your defination of morality is the only one that matters. Compassion compelled at the end of a sword.
A charity of my choice that I can give to of my own free seems a proper manner in which to dispose of any extra income. The Founders would agree. This fufills my moral obligation to society (if I feel I owe society any obligation) while at the same time assures my money doesn't go to subsidize behavior that I find morally reprehensible. The Constitution doesn't guarantee the rights you refer to as "the basics" (food, water, shelter) does it Larry? If it does; where is the Constitutional rationale for such belief? Point out the specific language in the document-I am not interested in your theories. I will be waiting for your response eagerly.

The problem Larry is there is an endless list of needs-new ones seem to pop up every day. No society can for long be compelled or forced to pay for all of them. Some of the "needs" that I believe you erroneously claim as rights are the sole reponsibility of the individual to provide for themselves. They are not guaranteed.

Are there any shiftless, lazy, irresponsible people that live in America Larry? Are they entitled to benefit from my labor? How much of my dollar are they entitled to claim as their right? 50 cents. 60 cents.

If you feel a moral obligation to others Larry voluntarily pay more taxes. You can do that you know.

mistermadison

Walled Lake, MI

#147 Nov 30, 2012
OH NO YOU Did not wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry again, but UNIONS are people. Greedy and caring about themselves people and nobody else, but people nonetheless.
no unions can't use members money for political purposes without permission. Corporations don't have to ask share holders. Corporations have more rights than individuals. Unions not so much. Is the the state of texas a person? How about flagstaff AZ? If they're incorporated they are. Thing. With unions is even if they get a corporate charter they don't have the same rights as the crony capitalist corporations.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#148 Nov 30, 2012
proudtobeamerica n wrote:
<quoted text>
A "moral" obligation Larry?? I have a "moral obligation" to permit the government to take my money anytime they define a new "need" and give it to people or a class of people that have not earned it? I have a moral obligation to assure that the needs and wants of other individuals should be fufilled despite my own moral objections? For example if a single mother wants to have an abortion is it my moral duty to subsidize it? I think not. My labor is not my own? My private property is not my own? It is communal property to be shared for the common good? In other words Larry-you are a socialist. There is no other way to describe you. Your defination of morality is the only one that matters. Compassion compelled at the end of a sword.
A charity of my choice that I can give to of my own free seems a proper manner in which to dispose of any extra income. The Founders would agree. This fufills my moral obligation to society (if I feel I owe society any obligation) while at the same time assures my money doesn't go to subsidize behavior that I find morally reprehensible. The Constitution doesn't guarantee the rights you refer to as "the basics" (food, water, shelter) does it Larry? If it does; where is the Constitutional rationale for such belief? Point out the specific language in the document-I am not interested in your theories. I will be waiting for your response eagerly.
The problem Larry is there is an endless list of needs-new ones seem to pop up every day. No society can for long be compelled or forced to pay for all of them. Some of the "needs" that I believe you erroneously claim as rights are the sole reponsibility of the individual to provide for themselves. They are not guaranteed.
Are there any shiftless, lazy, irresponsible people that live in America Larry? Are they entitled to benefit from my labor? How much of my dollar are they entitled to claim as their right? 50 cents. 60 cents.
If you feel a moral obligation to others Larry voluntarily pay more taxes. You can do that you know.
If you feel no moral obligation, you still have to pay taxes. The government allocates it where it chooses. Much of the tax I pay goes toward things I don't approve of, but that is how the game is played in a civilized society.

As I suggested earlier, you and I have greatly differing life views. This latest reply to me certainly bears that out.
mistermadison

Walled Lake, MI

#149 Nov 30, 2012
You think all "special interests" should be banned from political donations or just unions? Big business tried to push through Prop 32 to eliminate the competion. They was a win for the working class. And federal law protects workers from having to pay dues. If you own stock or 401k the companies your investmented in use your money for political donations. Did you get to decide where it went?
OH NO YOU Did not wrote:
<quoted text>
Democratic? I guess you forgot about Prop 32 where the unions paid $70 million to defeat the bill where union member could make choices for themselves. The unions made sure they bought the election because they could not let their member able to make up their own mind instead being forced to pay their union dues for Democrats. I have spoken to many union members that said to get the job they were forced to join their union (no choice there) and they had no choice to see how their union dues were spent if they had a choice of a non-UNION DEMOCRAT to vote for whether it be an Independent or Republican. They were force to contribute to the Democrats whether they liked it or not. That is not very democratic-sounding to me and to other normal thinking people.
proudtobeamerica n

Staten Island, NY

#150 Nov 30, 2012
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>I will ignore your dimwitted personal insults, so that I may directly address the subject at hand.
I readily admit that anger comes from both sides of the political spectrum on Topix. Most Topix regulars are people who are more emotionally invested in the issues than the average.
However, I believe that there are more righties than lefties on Topix (despite assertions to the contrary), and that the allegation that Topix is run by liberals is twisted and ridiculous.
That said, I think the right wing crazies have the distinct advantage in bigotry, intolerance, and ignorance. I don't believe there is anything on the left to compare with the bizarre right wing fringe on Topix.
Yes, liberals can be mean and nasty. We're all fallible human beings who often let our emotions get away from us. In my case, bigotry based on skin color, ethnicity, and sexual orientation make my blood boil. I wouldn't have it any other way.
Liberals are obsessed with classifying humans. So was Hitler by the way so progressives seem to have history on their side. They see not the individual and the content of his or her character but instead define humans by their ethnicity, sexual preference, gender, skin color, physical obnormalities-or anything else they can think up. Then they can carve out a special niche in which to conveniently place you, so they can then make the claim on your behalf, that you are disadvantaged or in need of help. That you have been wronged and are not yet whole. You become defined by everything except your character. You are not an American. You are a transgender Native American/Hispanic American that is physically disabled; however while Native American in appearance more closely identifies with his or her?(be very careful here!) Hispanic heritage and is therefore really Hispanic and very offended by being catergorized as disabled and prefers to be referred to as special. Do you see how exhausting being obsessed with race, color, gender and ethnicity is?

They are a little less particular with the human fetus-that always seems to be quickly catergorized as garbage.
loveitorleaveit

Walled Lake, MI

#152 Nov 30, 2012
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:

The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and GENERAL WELFARE of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

proudtobeamerica n wrote:
<quoted text>
Try to really answer this very simple question. What is the rationale and where is it in the Constitution that supports the idea that part of every dollar you earn belongs to someone that has not earned it merely because that person has needs or wants?
Does another person have a right to the fruits of someone else's labor merely because they feel entitled to it? If so how does one maintain the incentive to produce if their labor really does not belong to them?
Is the less gifted individual or the less responsible individual entitled to the earnings of another? If so what corresponding obligation does the recipient of those unearned dollars owe to the individual whose property is given to them? Do not they have a corresponding obligation to the provider to behave responsibly?
Every need and want cannot be guaranteed by a moral government. The mechanism used by government to guarantee the impossible promise of a life without fear of want or need is always the same.
Rationalize taking from those that have earned it and giving their income to those who have not. Redistribution of wealth no matter what spin one puts on the anticipated goal is just another method of rationalizng stealing. Sounds alot like tyranny.
loveitorleaveit

Walled Lake, MI

#153 Nov 30, 2012
or what parent would teach their children not to share with the less fortunate? if you don't want to pay taxes, then don't. and try not to use any government services either. be prepared to protect your own money on the kitchen table. while people starve on your doorstep.
proudtobeamerica n wrote:
<quoted text>
Another way to look at it so that even Marine Corp Pat can understand it is this way.
What responsible parent would encourage their child to take the toys of another child by explaining to his or her child that the child that has more toys or better toys doesn't deserve them? That taking a toy from the other child is ok because it is ok to be jealous and to dislike the other child for having the toys? Would such a parent encourage their child to steal the toys because their child desires, needs or is jealous of those toys? Now imagine if that child earned that toy by spending his or her allowance? More justification to take the toys? Why, because the child without toys needs or wants them but doesn't want to do chores to EARN an allowance?
Better yet, imagine on payday instead of the government withholding your taxes before you recieved your paycheck you recieved the entire check instead. All your pay-no taxes withheld. All the money is sitting in front of you at the kitchen table. Every dime you worked for that week is right in front of you.
There is a knock on the door on payday. All the people that did not work for that check show up at your house to take the piece of the check your government feels they are entitled to. The single mom that doesn't make responsible decisions and never worked hard a day in her life takes a pile of money off the table and tells you she needs clothes for her kids. Another person comes in and says you owe them healthcare and since you have money you should pay for it. Another says she needs money for birth control. And so on and so on. Of course the piece that gets taken for your retirement whether you like it or not, good old Social Security, you may not get back, and even if you do, if you die all the money you put in-well it doesn't go to your kids to goes back to the government. The conga line of the needy and the entitled keep coming in taking from the pile until the government decides they are done with you. What is left they and they alone allow you to keep. How much of your income are you going to surrender to those that have not earned it but feel entitled to it?

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#154 Nov 30, 2012
proudtobeamerica n wrote:
<quoted text>
Liberals are obsessed with classifying humans. So was Hitler by the way so progressives seem to have history on their side. They see not the individual and the content of his or her character but instead define humans by their ethnicity, sexual preference, gender, skin color, physical obnormalities-or anything else they can think up. Then they can carve out a special niche in which to conveniently place you, so they can then make the claim on your behalf, that you are disadvantaged or in need of help. That you have been wronged and are not yet whole. You become defined by everything except your character. You are not an American. You are a transgender Native American/Hispanic American that is physically disabled; however while Native American in appearance more closely identifies with his or her?(be very careful here!) Hispanic heritage and is therefore really Hispanic and very offended by being catergorized as disabled and prefers to be referred to as special. Do you see how exhausting being obsessed with race, color, gender and ethnicity is?
They are a little less particular with the human fetus-that always seems to be quickly catergorized as garbage.
This is not worthy of a serious response, certainly not by me. I actually agree with some of what you say, but it does not meaningfully argue with anything I said.
proudtobeamerica n

Staten Island, NY

#155 Nov 30, 2012
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>If you feel no moral obligation, you still have to pay taxes. The government allocates it where it chooses. Much of the tax I pay goes toward things I don't approve of, but that is how the game is played in a civilized society.
As I suggested earlier, you and I have greatly differing life views. This latest reply to me certainly bears that out.
What is the moral obligation for those 50% or so that do not pay a dime in federal taxes? You know the ones that don't make enough to pay Federal taxes. Which is odd because if you recieve a paycheck you are making something and therfore should pony up something. You mean they absolutely cannot contribute anything, not a dime to the Federal till? Giving up cable TV would be too much of a sacrifice? Last time I checked these 50% also have mail delivered, are protectd by the United States Military and get to use all Federally funded parks, roads and highways.

They have no "moral" obligation to sacrifice for the good of the country as well. Cut the crap with the shared sacrifice and moral obligations will you!

By the way I have no objection to paying taxes to help the Federal Government fufill its very limited constitutional powers.

In a civilized society others are not encouraged by government to feel entitled to other peoples wealth and claim it for themselves.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#156 Nov 30, 2012
loveitorleaveit wrote:
or what parent would teach their children not to share with the less fortunate? if you don't want to pay taxes, then don't. and try not to use any government services either. be prepared to protect your own money on the kitchen table. while people starve on your doorstep.<quoted text>
Bravo!
loveitorleaveit

Walled Lake, MI

#157 Nov 30, 2012
well "proud" you need to pay increasing taxes to build prisons because the people that got cut off food stamps are robbing people like you to feed their kids. are you willing to pay that tax? or maybe you could just buy stock in the private corporations that build and run prisons. then not only can you ignore the needy but you can profit too
proudtobeamerica n wrote:
<quoted text>
A "moral" obligation Larry?? I have a "moral obligation" to permit the government to take my money anytime they define a new "need" and give it to people or a class of people that have not earned it? I have a moral obligation to assure that the needs and wants of other individuals should be fufilled despite my own moral objections? For example if a single mother wants to have an abortion is it my moral duty to subsidize it? I think not. My labor is not my own? My private property is not my own? It is communal property to be shared for the common good? In other words Larry-you are a socialist. There is no other way to describe you. Your defination of morality is the only one that matters. Compassion compelled at the end of a sword.
A charity of my choice that I can give to of my own free seems a proper manner in which to dispose of any extra income. The Founders would agree. This fufills my moral obligation to society (if I feel I owe society any obligation) while at the same time assures my money doesn't go to subsidize behavior that I find morally reprehensible. The Constitution doesn't guarantee the rights you refer to as "the basics" (food, water, shelter) does it Larry? If it does; where is the Constitutional rationale for such belief? Point out the specific language in the document-I am not interested in your theories. I will be waiting for your response eagerly.
The problem Larry is there is an endless list of needs-new ones seem to pop up every day. No society can for long be compelled or forced to pay for all of them. Some of the "needs" that I believe you erroneously claim as rights are the sole reponsibility of the individual to provide for themselves. They are not guaranteed.
Are there any shiftless, lazy, irresponsible people that live in America Larry? Are they entitled to benefit from my labor? How much of my dollar are they entitled to claim as their right? 50 cents. 60 cents.
If you feel a moral obligation to others Larry voluntarily pay more taxes. You can do that you know.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#158 Nov 30, 2012
proudtobeamerica n wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the moral obligation for those 50% or so that do not pay a dime in federal taxes? You know the ones that don't make enough to pay Federal taxes. Which is odd because if you recieve a paycheck you are making something and therfore should pony up something. You mean they absolutely cannot contribute anything, not a dime to the Federal till? Giving up cable TV would be too much of a sacrifice? Last time I checked these 50% also have mail delivered, are protectd by the United States Military and get to use all Federally funded parks, roads and highways.
They have no "moral" obligation to sacrifice for the good of the country as well. Cut the crap with the shared sacrifice and moral obligations will you!
By the way I have no objection to paying taxes to help the Federal Government fufill its very limited constitutional powers.
In a civilized society others are not encouraged by government to feel entitled to other peoples wealth and claim it for themselves.
We're obviously talking past each other. I find your views extremely objctionable. Feel free to have a similar view toward mine.
loveitorleaveit

Walled Lake, MI

#159 Nov 30, 2012
you're wrong. 50 percent may not pay INCOME tax but income tax is only about 25 percent of federal revenue. there are all kinds of taxes. most of those with no federal income tax liability still pay PAYROLL taxes.
proudtobeamerica n wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the moral obligation for those 50% or so that do not pay a dime in federal taxes? You know the ones that don't make enough to pay Federal taxes. Which is odd because if you recieve a paycheck you are making something and therfore should pony up something. You mean they absolutely cannot contribute anything, not a dime to the Federal till? Giving up cable TV would be too much of a sacrifice? Last time I checked these 50% also have mail delivered, are protectd by the United States Military and get to use all Federally funded parks, roads and highways.
They have no "moral" obligation to sacrifice for the good of the country as well. Cut the crap with the shared sacrifice and moral obligations will you!
By the way I have no objection to paying taxes to help the Federal Government fufill its very limited constitutional powers.
In a civilized society others are not encouraged by government to feel entitled to other peoples wealth and claim it for themselves.
proudtobeamerica n

Staten Island, NY

#160 Nov 30, 2012
loveitorleaveit wrote:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:
The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and GENERAL WELFARE of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
<quoted text>
Nice try. What would the Founding Fathers include a rather detailed list of 17 specific enumerated powers that follow this clause if in fact the general Welfare language (as you erroneously believe)gives Congress unlimited power. Why grant any powers if in fact their power is unlimited? The Founders specifically limited the powers of Congress. They even went so far as to add a Bill of Rights to further limit the power of the Federal governmnt. If Congress could do everything-explain the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Superman can do anything. He can also do this, this and this. Make sense?

If your reading is correct, which I assure you it is not, Congress would have unlimited power so long as they descibe their action or legislation it as being in the interest of the general welfare of the United States. So let me get this straight-the Founding fathers gave Congress unlimited power?
proudtobeamerica n

Staten Island, NY

#161 Nov 30, 2012
loveitorleaveit wrote:
you're wrong. 50 percent may not pay INCOME tax but income tax is only about 25 percent of federal revenue. there are all kinds of taxes. most of those with no federal income tax liability still pay PAYROLL taxes. <quoted text>
Ah, the old payroll tax argument. I see because they pay some taxes that everyone else has to pay they don't have to pay federal taxes. I like your logic.

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.

Law Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Remaining occupiers release defiant videos mock... 3 hr Medewiwin 1
News Albuquerque aunt, grandmother charged with chil... 3 hr The truth 1
News Mewhinney case pending dismissal 4 hr Somebody who knows 10
News For Jeremiah's sake, try them for murder 5 hr Billybob 10
News Outlaws Motorcycle Gang Indicted: 27 members of... (Jun '10) 5 hr Blasphemer 58
News $280,000 salary at DHS has lawmakers talking 5 hr No Good 7
News Former head of Michigan's drinking water unit f... 6 hr BClinton Oral Eja... 2
More from around the web