Politics

[irishpat183]

whoa whoa whoa.... he said, in fact promised, no taxes on the middle class. He cant be lying about that

^Yup. And don't forget everything is "pay as you go" and won't "add one dime" to the deficit.

Meanwhile they're crying in the White House today because they had to fire the in-house caligrapher making $97k a year.

He's a man of the people, fellas.

 

[Downinthebend]

People in Iraq have to be terrified at the prospect of another Bush in office ... you know, with their family tradition of becoming President and bombing the crap out of them.

Actually, you should check the policies of your own president before calling the kettle black. Unless of course, you think the people we terrorize with drones are not terrified. People in the middle east should be terrified regardless of the cool R or cool D after the name of the next US president.

 

[GoIrish41]

Actually, you should check the policies of your own president before calling the kettle black. Unless of course, you think the people we terrorize with drones are not terrified. People in the middle east should be terrified regardless of the cool R or cool D after the name of the next US president.

Wow, you guys really want to argue with someone. I wasn't pointing the finger at anyone. I wasn't calling anyone out. I wasn't even poking fun at anyone. I wasn't "calling the kettle black." I was simply making an observation.

 

[Irish8248]

The fact is though he has had a deficit reduction plan since 2011.

... And that bold part right there is why hes a pretty bad president... I recall he took office in 08, passed ACA in '10, yet his debt reduction plan -- whatever that is -- was in 2011 ...

 

[Irish8248]

Anybody here that works in some type of political capacity?

for some reason it wont let me reply back, I keep getting a server error -- Ill keep trying though

 

[irishpat183]

... And that bold part right there is why hes a pretty bad president... I recall he took office in 08, passed ACA in '10, yet his debt reduction plan -- whatever that is -- was in 2011 ...

And the debt continues to climb.


I have a plan, but I didn't pass it until I was 3 years in office and, by the way, it doesn't work.


LOL

 

[irishpat183]

Wow, you guys really want to argue with someone. I wasn't pointing the finger at anyone. I wasn't calling anyone out. I wasn't even poking fun at anyone. I wasn't "calling the kettle black." I was simply making an observation.

Isnt that what the best board (offseason) on IE is all about!

Arguing politics is great. And just to reafirm, all you guys are great. I hold no ill will when talking about our crooked leaders in Washington.

Ball busting is apart of the fun!

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Anybody here that works in some type of political capacity?

Most of my waking hours involve domestic relations and toddler-diplomacy.

 

[DSully1995]

No, it will cost more for the government. The feds are subsidizing the buying of health insurance. Out of their own pocket. The cost of all the subsidies is about $1.7 trillion over the next decade. The revenue from all the new taxes and fees is about $500 billion. So a low estimate of what it will cost the federal gov't -- out of its own pocket -- is about $1.2 trillion over the next decade. That's direct federal spending.

Yea my bad forgot about the subsidies

 

[connor_in]

So the stock market closed at a record high today. Corporate profits continue to rise.

Barack Obama has to be the worst socialist ever.

Jim Cramer,"we all know it's going to end badly, but in the meantime we can make some money"

 

[chicago51]

... And that bold part right there is why hes a pretty bad president... I recall he took office in 08, passed ACA in '10, yet his debt reduction plan -- whatever that is -- was in 2011 ...

It is a fair complaint. I personally thought he should have done what FDR did and raise taxes on the very rich and then do a ton of investing. There are some that probably prefered he did the Herbert Hoover strategy and just let it all die; eventually the business cylce will recover and things will come back.

Most economist though it was insane to raise taxes or cut spending when the unemployment was up to 10.1 percent during Obama's first year in office.

I would argue until the uemployment is down to say 6.5 percent maybe even lower that it should still be the most pressing concern not the deficit.

 

[irishpat183]

It is a fair complaint. I personally thought he should have done what FDR did and raise taxes on the very rich and then do a ton of investing. There are some that probably prefered he did the Herbert Hoover strategy and just let it all die; eventually the business cylce will recover and things will come back.

Most economist though it was insane to raise taxes or cut spending when the unemployment was up to 10.1 percent during Obama's first year in office.

I would argue until the uemployment is down to say 6.5 percent maybe even lower that it should still be the most pressing concern not the deficit.

Because they hit such homeruns (like the billions we've lost in "green" energy) in investing.


Unemployment will never get below 7% with Obama in office. The ACA pretty much guaranteed that. Whether that was the intent or not.

 

[Downinthebend]

Chicago, what do you think of Rand Paul's filibuster?

 

[GoIrish41]

Isnt that what the best board (offseason) on IE is all about!

Arguing politics is great. And just to reafirm, all you guys are great. I hold no ill will when talking about our crooked leaders in Washington.

Ball busting is apart of the fun!

Perhaps, but I wasn't even talking politics in the comment that was responded to. It was simply saying that the Iraqis are probably afraid because another Bush could be president. I wasn't stating a political point of view at all. But, hey, whatever. I absolutely hold no ill will to anyone who posts in this thread. But those who don't agree with my point of view are misguided, mean-spirited, greedy bastards.

 

[irishpat183]

Perhaps, but I wasn't even talking politics in the comment that was responded to. It was simply saying that the Iraqis are probably afraid because another Bush could be president. I wasn't stating a political point of view at all. But, hey, whatever. I absolutely hold no ill will to anyone who posts in this thread. But those who don't agree with my point of view are misguided, mean-spirited, greedy bastards.

LOL!!!

 

[GoIrish41]

You actually believe this? I'll type slowly -

It is not illegal to have offshore money, you just need to report the income.

Therefore, the presence of offshore earnings on his tax returns only supports he is complying with the law. If he was doing something illegal, it would not be on his tax return?

Noodle over that for a minute and let me know which person in that Jimmy Kimmel bit was you.

I'm not sure the presence of offshore money in his tax returns necessarily meant that everything was above board. There are plenty of politicians who got away with paying fewer taxes than they were supposed to, only to be discovered when they were going through a confirmation process. This is one of the big reasons why his refusal to release more years of his taxes as looked at with such scrutiny. There is no doubt that the uber-rich put money in overseas accounts to avoid taxes.

 

[chicago51]

Chicago, what do you think of Rand Paul's filibuster?

Rand Paul lost all credibility with me during the Hillary Clinton hearing when his source for information came from a right wing blogger. That would be like a democrat using me as a source. I certainly will get some of the details wrong on occassion.

I actually don't like John Brennan.

Personally if I was a Senator I wouldn't fillibuster him but this don't bother me too bad. The fillibuster was only intended to extend debate never to block legistlation completely. It terms of appointees for various posititions. A fillibuster should only be used if they are unqualified, truly extreme, or they are a criminal.

I am actually more upset over this 23 month long filibuster.

Senate Republicans filibuster appellate court nominee Caitlin Halligan - The Washington Post

This judge on a 1 to 10 scale with 10 being the most liberal is 6. She is totally qualified to be on the US Court of Appeals. Being 6 out of 10 means she is not some crazy lefty but she actually pretty moderate.

Nobody cares about judicial appointees though except me and few others.

 

[connor_in]

Rand Paul lost all credibility with me during the Hillary Clinton hearing when his source for information came from a right wing blogger. That would be like a democrat using me as a source. I certainly will get some of the details wrong on occassion.

I actually don't like John Brennan.

Personally if I was a Senator I wouldn't fillibuster him but this don't bother me too bad.

I am actually more upset over this 23 month long filibuster.

Senate Republicans filibuster appellate court nominee Caitlin Halligan - The Washington Post

This judge on a 1 to 10 scale with 10 being the most liberal is 6. She is totally qualified to be on the US Court of Appeals. Being 6 out of 10 means she is not some crazy lefty but she actually pretty moderate.

Nobody cares about judicial appointees though except me and few others.

Quick question:
Where do you stand on the "upset continuum" regarding the lack of a budget from the Senate in 48+months?

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Quick question:
Where do you stand on the "upset continuum" regarding the lack of a budget from the Senate in 48+months?

Is that like the flux capacitor?

 

[chicago51]

Quick question:
Where do you stand on the "upset continuum" regarding the lack of a budget from the Senate in 48+months?

Pretty upset also.

Harry Reid has been a believer in that there is no point of passing something if it has a 0 percent chance of passing the House. I understand where he is coming from. Reid prefers to let the President negioate and then he'll just pass what the president agrees to.

I think though it does the Democrat party a diservice. I think it would do the Democrats some good if the American people actually could see their budget plans. It would give the people something else to process beside the Ryan budget.

 

[irishpat183]

I'm not sure the presence of offshore money in his tax returns necessarily meant that everything was above board. There are plenty of politicians who got away with paying fewer taxes than they were supposed to, only to be discovered when they were going through a confirmation process. This is one of the big reasons why his refusal to release more years of his taxes as looked at with such scrutiny. There is no doubt that the uber-rich put money in overseas accounts to avoid taxes.

So basically you're just under the assumption...you don't really know for a fact if he's done anything illegal.

I'm not sure just by having money overseas makes you a crook. Just like the left will claim being on welfare doesn't make you lazy,

 

[Buster Bluth]

I'm not sure the presence of offshore money in his tax returns necessarily meant that everything was above board. There are plenty of politicians who got away with paying fewer taxes than they were supposed to, only to be discovered when they were going through a confirmation process. This is one of the big reasons why his refusal to release more years of his taxes as looked at with such scrutiny. There is no doubt that the uber-rich put money in overseas accounts to avoid taxes.

This is pretty ignorant all around.

 

[chicago51]

This is pretty ignorant all around.

How so?

 

[connor_in]

Pretty upset also.

Harry Reid has been a believer in that there is no point of passing something if it has a 0 percent chance of passing the House. I understand where he is coming from. Reid prefers to let the President negioate and then he'll just pass what the president agrees to.

I think though it does the Democrat party a diservice. I think it would do the Democrats some good if the American people actually could see their budget plans. It would give the people something else to process beside the Ryan budget.

What you bring up is something that I could also put in the "Grinds Your Gears" thread and am glad it upsets you as well. The fact that he believes whatever they put out has 0% of getting thru the House is irrelevant. It is part of their job to do it, they did have a D house for 2 years and still never touched it (which makes me feel Reid's protestations aren't worth squat---which has been trending up on the DJIA from what I hear-squat, that is), and how do you even begin to negotiate any kind of compromise from the viewpoint of...person 1: well, here's my ideas...person 2: No...bye.

PS: I also makes me laugh that the White House has been so absent on this (referencing your 3rd sentence) to have only put laughably abhorrent out budget outlines without any kind of real numbers and that someone thought to actually bring it before the House and even got D's to vote it down

 

[Black Irish]

I'm not sure the presence of offshore money in his tax returns necessarily meant that everything was above board. There are plenty of politicians who got away with paying fewer taxes than they were supposed to, only to be discovered when they were going through a confirmation process. This is one of the big reasons why his refusal to release more years of his taxes as looked at with such scrutiny. There is no doubt that the uber-rich put money in overseas accounts to avoid taxes.

So Romney does what is legally required and reports his offshore accounts on his tax return and he's still a crook? Okay, got it.

 

[chicago51]

What you bring up is something that I could also put in the "Grinds Your Gears" thread and am glad it upsets you as well. The fact that he believes whatever they put out has 0% of getting thru the House is irrelevant. It is part of their job to do it, they did have a D house for 2 years and still never touched it (which makes me feel Reid's protestations aren't worth squat---which has been trending up on the DJIA from what I hear-squat, that is), and how do you even begin to negotiate any kind of compromise from the viewpoint of...person 1: well, here's my ideas...person 2: No...bye.

PS: I also makes me laugh that the White House has been so absent on this (referencing your 3rd sentence) to have only put laughably abhorrent out budget outlines without any kind of real numbers and that someone thought to actually bring it before the House and even got D's to vote it down

If you recall the constitution all revenue bills must originate in the House. Now the Senate can amend (or completely change) a House bill. Since Pelosi ran the House the Senate during those years just voted on the House budget.

I do think Harry Reid and certain other Democrats lack a spine. In a way they could you use a bit (not too much) of a lefty version of tea party craziness. One thing about Pelosi that neither Reid nor Boehner seem to do is get things done. You may not like what is done. It is going to be interesting on the House side of things this time. The Ryan budget only passed by 6 votes in 2012 as even some Republicans found it extreme. 30 of those Republicans that voted for it are not in the House and the Republicans have 9 fewer seats this time around.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/s5WNBcNOfk0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

As Governor Devalle Patrick said here it is time for Democrats to grow a backbone and stand up for what they believe.

 

[connor_in]

So Romney does what is legally required and reports his offshore accounts on his tax return and he's still a crook? Okay, got it.

Maybe he is basing it on the philosophy of rich R and therefore evil...or that other politicians do it, he is a politician, thus he does it (using either a flawed logical argument or an invalid Venn diagram)

 

[connor_in]

If you recall the constitution all revenue bills must originate in the House. Now the Senate can amend (or completely change) a House bill. Since Pelosi ran the House the Senate during those years just voted on the House budget.

Yes, all revenue bills must originate in the House...There have been budgetary bills passed by the House...The Senate has not touched them...thus cowardice and lack of fulfilling their duties (those listed in your second sentence). And also happy to hear you support the Senate getting a spine as well

Also, just to point out something about your last sentence quoted above...The Senate last passed a budget April 2009 (sorry I was wrong to say 48+ months before when its only really 47). That means that in 2010 when D's still controlled both houses of Congress, they still failed in their duty to pass a budget. Even if they did what you say, it is still a sad commentary on that chamber (no matter who controls it). The reason for the two different houses with different types of reps in each is to check the other. Thus the reason for the committee that exists to take the versions of a bill passed in the House and the version of a bill passed in the Senate and reconfigure it into something then placed before both houses for passage and then on to the president for signing...cue "I'm just a bill"

 

[GoIrish41]

So Romney does what is legally required and reports his offshore accounts on his tax return and he's still a crook? Okay, got it.

We know from Romney's 2010 tax returns that he had a Swiss bank account up to that tax year. We did not see his 2009 tax returns, which in and of itself is not that big a deal.

But ...

in 2008, a whistleblower at a bank in Switzerland told the IRS that there were thousands of American clients at his bank who had unreported accounts. The rest of 2008 and into 2009 more than 14,000 people came forward to take advantage of a long-standing policy of the IRS to allow offenders to avoid prosecution if they paid back taxes with interest on the funds they hid in Swiss accounts to avoid taxes. In addition, they had to pay some fines. Up until 2008, very few people took advantage of this IRS policy, but once the whistleblower came forward, the flood gates opened. The whistleblower's bank was forced to pay $hundreds of millions in fines and they handed over the names of more than 4000 American clients suspected of tax fraud. A lot of people got scared that their names were on that list and came forward.

Back to Romney ...

the incredible amount of political damage he took early in the general election (and even in the GOP primary) over not releasing any more than that one tax return (2010). Come on, you had to ask yourself back then why the heck he was willing to take that beating when you could have turned it off at any minute. Why would he endure such political punishment? Speculation was that he was, perhaps, one of those thousands of Americans who suddently took advantage of the IRS policy in 2008/09. If he was, the additional taxes, interest and fines he was forced to pay would certainly have been a part of his 2009 tax returns. It isn't that far fetched. Remember we knew he had that Swiss bank account in 2010. When his own father turned over ten, or maybe it was 12, tax returns and set the precident for someone running in a presidential election, it seems odd that the son would be so willing to ignore that precident. And, he couldn't very well turn over 2008's tax return without turning over 09's. The year he skipped would certainly have raised a lot of eyebrows.

Admittedly, I do not know if anything was done illegally. But, I'm not just making some assumption from out of the blue either. If something looks like sh*t, and smells like sh*t, there is a pretty good chance that it is sh*t. And if Romney was so squeaky clean, he could have easily demonstrated that he wasn't full of sh*t by releasing his tax returns. I, for one, think he is a crook because it is really the only plausible explanation for his actions, inactions really, when he was being savaged during his campaign.

 

[Downinthebend]

Rand Paul lost all credibility with me during the Hillary Clinton hearing when his source for information came from a right wing blogger. That would be like a democrat using me as a source. I certainly will get some of the details wrong on occassion.

I actually don't like John Brennan.

Personally if I was a Senator I wouldn't fillibuster him but this don't bother me too bad. The fillibuster was only intended to extend debate never to block legistlation completely. It terms of appointees for various posititions. A fillibuster should only be used if they are unqualified, truly extreme, or they are a criminal.

I am actually more upset over this 23 month long filibuster.

Senate Republicans filibuster appellate court nominee Caitlin Halligan - The Washington Post

This judge on a 1 to 10 scale with 10 being the most liberal is 6. She is totally qualified to be on the US Court of Appeals. Being 6 out of 10 means she is not some crazy lefty but she actually pretty moderate.

Nobody cares about judicial appointees though except me and few others.

I don't have a strong opinion on Rand Paul himself, its just, I love that he is bringing up this issue.