GOP House Passes "Cliff" Deal Tonite; Forces Dems to Address Spending

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 09:05 PM
link   
UPDATE: 11:32 P.M.

The House passed the Senate tax proposal with a 257-167 vote.

See OP, below, and more on the Update below.

Some see this as an alternative to Boehner's earlier consideration of conceding everything and letting Obama take the blame when the economy returns to recession.


AN OPTIMISTIC TAKE ON THE “CLIFF” DEAL

For the last four years, the Obama administration has run up unprecedented deficits, adding more than $4 trillion to the national debt. How has President Obama justified such profligacy? He has been a broken record: his mantra is that we just need to increase taxes on the “wealthy,” … and then everything will be fine. He has never offered any other plan either to raise revenue, or to control spending. Raising taxes on upper-income taxpayers is the only card in his deck.

President Obama …has gotten his way: marginal income tax rates on high earners are being restored to Clintonian levels (assuming the House goes along). Isn’t that, for the Democrats, an ominous development? Their call for higher taxes on the rich was never a serious policy proposal; it was always sheer demagoguery. It was a politically popular way to deflect all meaningful talk about the budget.

But what happens now that Obama has gotten his way? It will soon become apparent that the … the tax increases that Obama has been demanding for four years, makes hardly a dent in the deficit.

We will continue to run up deficits of close to $1 trillion a year, and the national debt will continue to grow, as Obama has always intended. This fact can’t be hidden; it will be reported. Journalists who have pulled their punches in the past because they wanted Obama to be re-elected will now begin to ask, what are we going to do about the deficit and the debt?

All of this is another way of saying that, with the Democrats’ BS about raising taxes on the rich out of the way, we can have a rational debate about the country’s fiscal future. And that is a debate the GOP can win, as most voters continue to believe that it is better to cut spending than to raise taxes on them. So let’s not despair: the post-cliff landscape may well prove favorable to the sorts of reforms that have been impossible for the last four years.

www.powerlineblog.com...


UPDATED 11:32 P.M.

House passes bill to avert 'fiscal cliff'

Ending weeks of uncertainty, the House voted late Tuesday on a Senate-passed bill designed to blunt massive take hikes and spending cuts.
WASHINGTON — After a weekend of negotiation and brinkmanship, the House voted late Tuesday to pass a Senate bill that averts $600 billion in tax hikes and spending cuts known as the "fiscal cliff."
The vote, 257-167, came after a day of meetings among disgruntled GOP House members who felt the Senate had handed them a bill with substantial revenue measures but not enough cuts in spending. The Senate had formally adjourned after handing the bill to the House, complicating the fate of the bill. House Republicans had threatened to send the bill back to the Senate with requested changes, busting the deadline for when the hikes kicked in.
Earlier in the day, the Senate-approved plan also ran headlong into opposition from the No. 2 House Republican.
"I do not support the bill," House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., told reporters after Republicans held a lengthy closed-door meeting to gauge support for the compromise. Participants in the extraordinary New Year's Day meeting said there was widespread criticism that the bill did not contain enough spending cuts.

news.msn.com...


Maybe, by taking the "tax the rich" and "fair share" demagoguery off the table, the GOP can force the Progressives to tackle spending, or to take 100% of the blame when the economy goes belly up.


jw
edit on 1-1-2013 by jdub297 because: update




posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Interesting! I am waiting to see if Cantor has enough followers to block this from passing. My question is what happens if this does not pass?



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by SpaDe_
 

I'd say it then goes back to the Dems and it's their problem once again. Wow... This is high stakes gaming we rarely see.

From material I was reading last night, they technically have until mid-day Thursday to settle this. That is when the next Congress officially sits I guess and then, whatever hasn't been fixed is our new reality.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by SpaDe_
 

The Senate has adjourned until January 3, If it doesn't pass the House, we're over the cliff by about 72 hours before anyone can even start to try something new.
OMB and Federal agencies will probably have to start with the "pink slip" processes as program funding expires and no agreements take their place.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by SpaDe_
 

I'd say it then goes back to the Dems and it's their problem once again. Wow... This is high stakes gaming we rarely see.

From material I was reading last night, they technically have until mid-day Thursday to settle this. That is when the next Congress officially sits I guess and then, whatever hasn't been fixed is our new reality.



I was doing a little thinking, and I am starting to wonder if this is all staged so that it doesn't pass. What if they want this to become a reality and all these political theatrics are just for show?



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by SpaDe_
 

The Senate has adjourned until January 3, If it doesn't pass the House, we're over the cliff by about 72 hours before anyone can even start to try something new.
OMB and Federal agencies will probably have to start with the "pink slip" processes as program funding expires and no agreements take their place.

Technically we are already over the cliff, but by passing this bill it would reset the clock for a couple of months. This bill isn't a permanent fix, it is just a temporary one.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by SpaDe_
 

I think you hit an excellent point there. I'm not sure but I've wondered about this myself. Going 'off the cliff' will be devastating to the nation as a whole if it's entirely unmitigated. This bill or one like it doesn't help much but as noted in another thread, perceptions it helps may be enough.

Having said that? I think the Cliff represents direct benefits to both sides. Different benefits from different aspects of what it automatically brings about ....but benefit.

The thing is... They're all things neither side could politically survive doing by deliberate action. It could be that both sides are willing to see the harm come from what the Other considers a benefit to get what they themselves call that. it's a scary line of reasoning for just HOW cold it suggests the whole gang up there is. Hard to believe though? I wish it were.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 10:12 PM
link   
house passed it



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 10:14 PM
link   
These ass hats let the bankers steal this nation from 1980 to date. In 2008 people lost their jobs, their retirement, their 401k value, their houses (in most cases 25% unrecoverable value) and did nothing about it.

Let it burn.

Americans are bankrupt and America is nothing but Americans at the end of the day.





new topics
top topics
 
2

log in

join