Boehner's vote, originally scheduled for Tuesday, got delayed to Wednesday, then to this evening, and now has been delayed indefinitely. He simply doesn't have the votes. For someone b****ing about "my way only" the whole time, its ridiculous that he can't even get his own caucus to agree on his way.
By your logic we should just cut taxes to 1% to maximize revenue. economics is clearly not your forte sir.
No, 1.44 trillion is the PROJECTION over his presidency assuming it goes 8 years. I'm not trolling you but you sure are dense when it comes to reading a chart.
I didn't say you suggested it, I said by your logic. I think you are the one with a reading comprehension issue...and getting a bit testy are we? I think you've been clearly proven wrong - specifically by Major and co. Why don't you just admit you are wrong and move on? Or are you not capable of that?
WOW. http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/07/28/debt.talks/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 If he had said yes long before now, this problem would have been solved.
Major actually proved my point for me by posting the revenues year by year. They show no increase. Which is what I originally said: 1987 - 854.3 1988 - 909.2 1989 - 991.1 1990 - 1,032.0 1991 - 1,055.0 1992 - 1,091.2 1993 - 1,154.3 1994 - 1,258.6 1995 - 1,351.8 1996 - 1,453.1 1997 - 1,579.2 1998 - 1,721.7 1999 - 1,827.5 No massive increase in revenue just more of the same. http://blogs.forbes.com/beltway/2011/02/10/the-1993-clinton-tax-increase-did-not-lead-to-the-budget-surpluses-of-the-late-90s/
you don't see the difference in revenue as being significant after 1993? You're talking about 40-50 billion yoy increases jumping to to about 100 billion or more increases. Thats' double growth. 1993 to 1994 was not a great economic year and yet you got big bump in revenue? you got no clothes my friend.
I see growth increasing in between 5-9 % every year consistently without change. You should measure change relatively. Some years have 9%(88-89,93-94, 97-98); the data hardly suggests the tax hike lead to more revenue. I am not your friend. My friends are smart enough not to not need to end their arguments with "if you disagree with me your worse then Hitler".
I didnt realize the president had a vote in the house or senate. When Boehner can't even get his own party to vote on a one sided bill, what do you expect President Obama to do?
I wish there were more guys like this in the Republican party. Or just in politics in general http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000035110
Yes. Because by extending them beyond their legal expiration he, in essence, gave them a new tax cut. By the same standard, if he lets them expire when they are now scheduled to expire, it won't be a "new" tax or a "raising" of taxes. Of course, it's important to include the caveat that Republicans held tax relief for the middle class and the extension of unemployment benefits hostage to force him to do it.
The president has spent every day working on this since the Republicans decided to **** with something that has been a routine yes vote forever -- something that we all know has always been requested and received as a matter of course. This has never been a crisis but that the Republicans this year chose to make it one. Just to see what they could get for it. It's insane to suggest the president's been absent. He's tried 10 different ways to appease these nutjobs. And all of them have been insanely good deals for the right. Now, by supporting the Reid plan he is literally giving them every single thing they asked for at the beginning of this mess and they are still saying no. What else do you want him to do? I expect that now he is letting the babies run out the clock, which they were going to do no matter what he did, and if they can't grow up for a minute for the sake of the country he will be forced to invoke the 14th Amendment. There's no reason for him to do it yet. He will hold out hope that there are enough marginally sane Republicans left in Congress not to allow the economy to be plunged into catastrophe for no damn reason and if there aren't he will have to step in and be the grown up once again.
Here you go, Mr. Clutch: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/29/us-usa-debt-obama-idUSTRE76S03Z20110729
I'm sure Obama is working hard, but I'm referring to his political marginalization. It seems Reid has had to take the lead to try to get a deal the Dems like. President on Sidelines in Critical Battle Over Debt Ceiling http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/28/us/politics/28obama.html?_r=1&ref=politics But I do agree the Tea Party is nuts for not already taken a deal after the Dems have compromised so much and have taken it dangerously too far.
