GOP not raising our taxes. Happy holidays!

[HSKR]

That is all.

[carlfense]

That is all.

+1.

 

I, for one, was happy to see the GOP cave.

[HSKR]

That is all.

+1.

 

I, for one, was happy to see the GOP cave.

So for the record, you actually thought they weren't going to pass it?

[carlfense]

That is all.

+1.

 

I, for one, was happy to see the GOP cave.

So for the record, you actually thought they weren't going to pass it?

What changed their minds? The bill remained the same. Were they obstructionist just for the sake of being obstructionist?

[HSKR]

That is all.

+1.

 

I, for one, was happy to see the GOP cave.

So for the record, you actually thought they weren't going to pass it?

What changed their minds? The bill remained the same. Were they obstructionist just for the sake of being obstructionist?

Going to answer the question or not?

[Hingle McCringleberry]

That is all.

+1.

 

I, for one, was happy to see the GOP cave.

So for the record, you actually thought they weren't going to pass it?

What changed their minds? The bill remained the same. Were they obstructionist just for the sake of being obstructionist?

 

The house bill was different... They voted down a one year extension, and passed a two month one today... The XL stuff is still in as well, and the "Doc fix" but I think that got changed from 2-3 years, to one... In the end the 'pubs were taking a beating over it, and needed to save face... Even though the House had a different bill that would of needed to go to committee to reconcile the two bills, then voted on again, that is what happened today, I think they used unanimous consent to speed it through....

[Comish]

Simple case of the Pubs being right on principal (a continuing series of CR's to stopgap fund the government is NOT an efficient way to govern), but got caught on the wrong side of the politics.

 

In that, it allowed the dems to frame it as the GOP being against tax cuts, which is ironic, since the dems always rail against that, but this framing allowed them to portray Pubs as against cuts.

 

It was always just a semantic battle because the president and dems. "victory " puts $20 a week in workers pockets for 2 months for a grand total of $160. Hardly the stuff of a major policy shift.

 

But it did allow the dems to win the public relations battle and the Speaker to come across as ineffective. Even though, in reality, all he was angling for was a 1 year extension so they didn't have to fight this battle again in February.

 

Regardless, the real losers (again) are the American public. The payroll extension cuts cut off the only consistent funding mechanism for social security which is already insolvent. So it's another case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. And, when that happens, the only thing you get is a sore Peter.

[carlfense]

So for the record, you actually thought they weren't going to pass it?

Where did I say that? I've said they opposed it.

 

I figured that no matter how tone deaf they are to the public they would pick up on this one eventually.

[carlfense]

That is all.

+1.

 

I, for one, was happy to see the GOP cave.

So for the record, you actually thought they weren't going to pass it?

What changed their minds? The bill remained the same. Were they obstructionist just for the sake of being obstructionist?

Going to answer the question or not?

Sure. See above.

 

Now are you going to answer my question or not?

[HSKR]

So for the record, you actually thought they weren't going to pass it?

Where did I say that? I've said they opposed it.

 

I figured that no matter how tone deaf they are to the public they would pick up on this one eventually.

 

GOP raising our taxes. Happy holidays!

 

 

http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/57021-gop-raising-our-taxes-happy-holidays/

 

That's where you said it. If you truly believed they weren't going to pass this then my assumption is you must be completely out of the loop when it comes to politics. If you didn't think that was the case and created that thread, then you just proved to me that you are no better with your political posturing then Boehner is because that is exactly what he was doing and he just failed miserably, much as you just did.

[HSKR]

That is all.

+1.

 

I, for one, was happy to see the GOP cave.

So for the record, you actually thought they weren't going to pass it?

What changed their minds? The bill remained the same. Were they obstructionist just for the sake of being obstructionist?

To be an obstructionist, the bill would have not passed so that isn't the case. It was all political posturing with maybe the slight hope to actually get a full year in which didn't happen. In the end Boehner lost some serious political points with this and gave some positive points to Obama.

[carlfense]

So for the record, you actually thought they weren't going to pass it?

Where did I say that? I've said they opposed it.

 

I figured that no matter how tone deaf they are to the public they would pick up on this one eventually.

 

GOP raising our taxes. Happy holidays!

 

 

http://www.huskerboa...happy-holidays/

 

That's where you said it. If you truly believed they weren't going to pass this then my assumption is you must be completely out of the loop when it comes to politics. If you didn't think that was the case and created that thread, then you just proved to me that you are no better with your political posturing then Boehner is because that is exactly what he was doing and he just failed miserably, much as you just did.

You're playing both sides here. You're attempting to say that they were for it despite voting against it (or refusing to allow a vote on it) . . . and once they changed their minds it was because they were going to do it all along.

 

Interesting spin. Not particularly effective in my opinion, but interesting.

 

It's almost as interesting that you apparently agree that this extension is good for the middle class but you are alright with the GOP trying to score political points by opposing it. Silly me for thinking that maybe there was a legitimate argument to be made.

[carlfense]

To be an obstructionist, the bill would have not passed so that isn't the case. It was all political posturing with maybe the slight hope to actually get a full year in which didn't happen. In the end Boehner lost some serious political points with this and gave some positive points to Obama.

Are you more comfortable with it being termed temporarily obstructionist?

[HSKR]

Simple case of the Pubs being right on principal (a continuing series of CR's to stopgap fund the government is NOT an efficient way to govern), but got caught on the wrong side of the politics.

 

In that, it allowed the dems to frame it as the GOP being against tax cuts, which is ironic, since the dems always rail against that, but this framing allowed them to portray Pubs as against cuts.

 

It was always just a semantic battle because the president and dems. "victory " puts $20 a week in workers pockets for 2 months for a grand total of $160. Hardly the stuff of a major policy shift.

 

But it did allow the dems to win the public relations battle and the Speaker to come across as ineffective. Even though, in reality, all he was angling for was a 1 year extension so they didn't have to fight this battle again in February.

 

Regardless, the real losers (again) are the American public. The payroll extension cuts cut off the only consistent funding mechanism for social security which is already insolvent. So it's another case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. And, when that happens, the only thing you get is a sore Peter.

Great post. Boehner just got his butt handed to him. While it may have been the right thing to do, it was completely stupid to try to do this right before the Christmas holiday. In the long term this may work in Republican's favor because the reverse psychology now makes democrats think tax cuts are a good thing. Two years ago, I would have never believed the left would still be championing the Bush tax cuts.

[HSKR]

To be an obstructionist, the bill would have not passed so that isn't the case. It was all political posturing with maybe the slight hope to actually get a full year in which didn't happen. In the end Boehner lost some serious political points with this and gave some positive points to Obama.

Are you more comfortable with it being termed temporarily obstructionist?

Nope, call it what it is, plain and simple.