Repeal or not fund HRC, cut 100 billion in spending, cut taxes for everyone especially Bill Gates since he creates jobs, smaller government, etc...lots to accomplish in two years!

11/4/2010 1:47:04 AM

2 years of filibusters... I don't think they've made any allies. And they don't have the necessary standard 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate.

I think its safe to say we aren't going to be seeing a lot get done by either side for the next 2 years, other than some interesting tv now & again.

11/4/2010 2:08:33 AM

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44648.html

Quote :

" Darrell Issa: I'll investigate George W. Bush, too "

Quote :

" Issa made clear that he intends to examine both the Bush and Obama administrations’ handling of the mortgage crisis, as well as problems at the old Mineral Management Service, an arm of the Interior Department reorganized amid reports of corruption. “When we look at the failures of Freddie [Mac] and Fannie [Mae], the Countrywide scandal, those all began during President Bush’s time,” Issa said. “When we look at Mineral Management Service and the ultimate failure in the Gulf, that began years before.” “I’m hoping to bridge the multiple administrations in as many places as possible,” Issa pledged. “The enemy is the bureaucracy, not necessarily the current occupant of the White House.” "

Wow. While I have expectations that several of these investigations will be wastes of time at least he is being non-partisan about it.

+1 credibility

11/4/2010 10:25:23 AM

I actually disagree. I think the Republicans and the White House are going to be forced to work together to save their skins. With the Republicans now a stakeholder, if they don't produce then their supporters will turn against them. The White House will also need to produce something with the Republicans if they want a second term. The only people who may not play along is the Senate where either side may try to sabotage one another.

11/4/2010 4:52:51 PM

- Tax cuts for middle class extended
- No more stimulus, so back to Bush's 2008 profligate spending rather than his 2009 spending.
- TARP returns go to deficit
- And if they are fucking stupid, they will dick with homosexual things. Based on the fact that dumbasses like Renee Ellmers got in, I suspect they will
- Most bi-partisan thing might be some sort of financial market re-regulation.

[Edited on November 4, 2010 at 7:23 PM. Reason : .]

11/4/2010 7:23:02 PM

Cut Spending! Just don't ask 'em what to cut out.

11/4/2010 8:06:30 PM

How the next 2 years goes is going to depend a lot on the leadership. I know it's widely presumed that Boehner will be speaker, but I'd really rather see someone else get it. They always talk about bipartisanship, but too often that equates to everyone getting their respective bacon. I'd rather see a line drawn in the sand; a true shift in the way business is done. Every action taken by the Congress should be voted down if not expressly permitted by the Constitution. I don't mind some Republican infighting. In fact, I want to see it.

[Edited on November 4, 2010 at 8:34 PM. Reason : ]

11/4/2010 8:34:08 PM

Quote :

"I'd rather see a line drawn in the sand; a true shift in the way business is done."

You must be new here. Prepare for disappointment.

11/4/2010 9:51:09 PM

Quote :

"And if they are fucking stupid, they will dick with homosexual things. Based on the fact that dumbasses like Renee Ellmers got in, I suspect they will"

I expect Rand Paul to introduce the "Homogay-Free School Zones Act" on 3 January 2011, threatening to cut off highway funding to states that don't smear the queers, even students, right out of the schools.

11/4/2010 10:18:59 PM

As long as he has a credibility watch thread now, might as well throw this in here:

He cosponsored H.J. Res 47 to ban flag burning, voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, he cosponsored efforts on allowing roving warrant-less wiretapping of Americans, voted against the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act, voted against shareholder approval of corporate political ads, wants less oil drilling regulation, voted against repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, is anti-choice, and is pro-teaching intelligent design.

Here is a gem on his scare tactics:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/30/gop.ad/index.html
"House Minority Leader Boehner releases Web ad attacking Obama on security"

An image of the Pentagon on fire during the 9/11 attacks is used in a new GOP Web video attacking the president.

Before anyone asks, I did check for older threads first, even the latest one with his name was too old to bump:
"Boehner knew Foley was a Pedophile months ago"
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=436097&page=1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/02/AR2006020202571_pf.html

Quote :

"But Boehner has had his share of taint. He handed out checks from tobacco lobbyists on the House floor in 1995 while lawmakers were weighing tobacco subsidies. In 2004, he allowed Sallie Mae to throw him a fundraiser while the student lending outfit was lobbying his committee. And he is a frequent flier on trips paid for by special interests."

11/5/2010 2:39:23 AM

"they will dick with homosexual things"

Nicely put.

11/5/2010 9:17:25 AM

We will see if the new congress can do the good work of the US Chamber of Commerce.

11/5/2010 10:01:32 AM

Quote :

"What the Next Speaker Must Do Secrecy, arrogance, and the abuse of power have shattered the bonds of trust between the people and their elected leaders. Repairing that trust requires sweeping change, beginning with an end to earmarks By JOHN BOEHNER I grew up in a small house on a hill in Cincinnati, Ohio, with 11 brothers and sisters. My dad ran a bar, Andy's Café, that my grandfather Andrew Boehner opened in 1938. We didn't have much but were thankful for what we had. And we didn't think much about Washington. That changed when I got involved with a small business, which I eventually built into a successful enterprise. I saw firsthand how government throws obstacles in the way of job-creation and stifles our prosperity. It prompted me to get involved in my government, and eventually took me to Congress. Millions of Americans have had a similar experience. They look at Washington and see an arrogance of power. They see a Congress that doesn't listen, that is ruled by leaders who seem out of touch and dismissive, even disdainful, of the anger that Americans feel toward their government and the challenges they face in an economy struggling to create jobs. The political landscape has been permanently reshaped over the past two years. Overreaching by elected officials—in the form of pork-laden "stimulus" spending, permanent bailouts, and policies that force responsible taxpayers to subsidize irresponsible behavior—has awakened something deep in our national character. This has led to a surge of activism by citizens demanding smaller, more accountable government and a repudiation of Washington in Tuesday's elections. Tired of politicians who refuse to listen, Americans who previously were not involved or minimally involved in the political process are now helping to drive it. While their backgrounds are as diverse as the country itself, their message to Washington is the same: Government leaders are servants of the people; the people are not servants of their government. The members of the 112th Congress must heed this message if there is to be any hope of repairing the shattered bonds of trust between the American people and their elected leaders. And that begins with the speaker of the House, who as leader of the institution must lead by example. Accordingly, there are several steps I believe the next speaker should be prepared to take immediately. Among them: • No earmarks. Earmarks have become a symbol of a broken Washington, and an entire lobbying industry has been created around them. The speaker of the House shouldn't use the power of the office to raid the federal Treasury for pork-barrel projects. To the contrary, the speaker should be an advocate for ending the current earmark process, and should adhere to a personal no-earmarks policy that stands as an example for all members of Congress to follow. I have maintained a no-earmarks policy throughout my time of service in Congress. I believe the House must adopt a moratorium on all earmarks as a signal of our commitment to ending business as usual in the spending process. • Let Americans read bills before they are brought to a vote. The speaker of the House should not allow any bill to come to a vote that has not been posted publicly online for at least three days. Members of Congress and the American people must have the opportunity to read it. Similarly, the speaker should insist that every bill include a clause citing where in the Constitution Congress is given the power to pass it. Bills that can't pass this test shouldn't get a vote. House Republicans' new governing agenda, "A Pledge to America," calls for the speaker to implement such reforms immediately. • No more "comprehensive" bills. The next speaker should put an end to so-called comprehensive bills with thousands of pages of legislative text that make it easy to hide spending projects and job-killing policies. President Obama's massive "stimulus" and health-care bills, written behind closed doors with minimal public scrutiny, were the last straw for many Americans. The American people are not well-served by "comprehensive," and they are rightly suspicious of the adjective. • No more bills written behind closed doors in the speaker's office. Bills should be written by legislators in committee in plain public view. Issues should be advanced one at a time, and the speaker should place an emphasis on smaller, more focused legislation that is properly scrutinized, constitutionally sound, and consistent with Americans' demand for a less-costly, less-intrusive government. The speaker of the House, like all members of Congress, is a servant of the American people. The individual entrusted with that high honor and responsibility should act accordingly. A speaker's mission should not be to consolidate power in the speaker's office, but rather to ensure that elected officials uphold their oath to defend the Constitution and the American people we serve. If a speaker carries out that mission successfully, the result should be legislation that better reflects the considerable challenges we face as a nation. The American people deserve a majority in Congress that listens to the people, focuses on their priorities and honors their demands for smaller, more accountable government. Accountability starts at the top, in the office of the speaker."

If these goals are actually achieved I will be amazed. But if they are I'll be absolutely thrilled.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703805704575594280015549088.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

11/5/2010 10:22:26 AM

hehehe


boehner

hheee hhehhhehee

11/5/2010 10:25:00 AM

Also, am I the only one that thinks that John Boehner looks and sounds a LOT like George's boss on Seinfeld, Mr. Kruger?



If Mr. Kruger wasn't bald I think he'd be a dead ringer.

11/5/2010 10:46:21 AM

I can sort of see it, if you had some hair & an orange spray tan.

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20101111/OPINION01/311110017/1016/OPINION/Editorial+|+McConnell+s+true+colors

Looking at Boehner's counter-part head GOP in the Senate, Mitch McConnell... it looks like he was telling Bush privately we need to draw down in Iraq to help the GOP politically, and that same time he was calling the Democratic leadership letter to Bush, that said draw down for national security & fiscal policy reasons, the same thing as retreat (letting the terrorists win). Boehner & McConnell will make a great team.

11/13/2010 10:31:38 PM

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/17/boehner-elected-house-speaker/

Quote :

"Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, was unanimously selected as the Republican House leader"

11/17/2010 4:03:55 PM

LOL. Boehner's address to the 112th congress said that he's always believed that one can disagree without being disagreeable. This from the man who yelled "hell no you can't" on the house floor. I wonder what his threshold for disagreeable is then?

1/5/2011 2:17:25 PM

You know, for claiming that Pelosi was going to have the most open and ethical House in existence, you would think the Democrats would have added the rules to the governing the House that Speaker Boehner just did. Like:

The Committee on House Administration shall establish and maintain standards for making documents publicly available in electronic form by the House and its committees.’

Not later than 24 hours after commencing a meeting to consider a measure or matter, the chair of such committee shall cause the text of such measure or matter to be made publicly available in electronic form.

The Speaker may admit to the floor, under such regulations as the Speaker may prescribe, not more than one representative of each press association.

And that's just the first 12 pages!

1/5/2011 3:03:09 PM

http://www.wral.com/news/political/story/8885958/

Quote :

"WASHINGTON — One of the first acts of the new Republican-controlled House is to take away the floor voting rights of six delegates representing areas such as the U.S. capital, Puerto Rico, Guam and American Samoa. Five of those delegates are Democrats, while one, from the Northern Marianas Islands, is an independent."

Quote :

"Virgin Islands Delegate Donna Christensen calls the Republican action "a very undemocratic way" to start the new Congress."

1/5/2011 5:13:51 PM

I know. How dare we take away voting rights from areas that aren't Constitutionally allowed them in the first place?

1/5/2011 6:27:22 PM

TKE, lol, he does sound a lot like Kruger. haha, good one.

1/5/2011 11:34:32 PM

^4 It looks like they're already breaking their own rules:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47124.html#ixzz1AGru5nd8

"GOP bends its own new House rules"

Quote :

"But the new majority is already showing these promises aren’t exactly set in stone. After calling for bills to go through a regular committee process, the bill that would repeal the health care law will not go through a single committee. Despite promising a more open amendment process for bills, amendments for the health care repeal will be all but shut down. After calling for a strict committee attendance list to be posted online, Republicans backpedaled and ditched that from the rules. They promised constitutional citations for every bill but have yet to add that language to early bills."

Didn't take them long.

1/6/2011 11:43:05 AM

I know I'm being an asshole about this, but I would think that if you and the rest of the Congressional leadership call for the reading of the Constitution, you would stay and listen instead of having a press conference during the reading.

1/6/2011 12:35:26 PM

^^No amendments are necessary. It's pretty simple, repeal the law. You don't need more than one page to do that.

[Edited on January 6, 2011 at 2:30 PM. Reason : ]

1/6/2011 2:29:23 PM

^exactly. Im pretty sure on Obamacare the repubs know where the dems stand. lol

1/6/2011 2:49:12 PM

So is there actually any chance in hell of it being repealed, what with the Senate and a veto looming?

1/6/2011 3:45:20 PM

I dont think it can be with Obama in office, but I think they can not fund it.

1/6/2011 4:03:53 PM

I doubt it. Obama would veto any attempt to repeal his "crowning achievement." I don't doubt that the GOP will still go through the motions, despite knowing the inevitable outcome. They may just seek to deprive certain parts of the legislation of necessary funding, but there are many parts of the law that require no funding, yet are still destructive. Republicans will need to offer up some legitimate reforms, rather than the poorly applied bandaids found in the most recently passed HRC law, if they want to be viewed as anything more than embittered partisans.

1/6/2011 4:08:59 PM

And an override would require 48 Democrats to join with the 242 Republicans, which I don't think would happen. I think if an override were attempted, it would probably receive 270 votes.

Something else to think about: Dems are thinking of changing rules to the filibuster. In 2012, 23 Democrats/Independents and 10 Republicans are up for re-election. (list below). If the Republicans win all of their races (which they might not) and only a handful of the other seats (which they could), the Democrats could end up shooting themselves in the foot.

Unless they plan on changing the filibuster rules back in the lame duck (which I would not put it past them to do).

Democratic incumbents
Dianne Feinstein of California
Tom Carper of Delaware
Bill Nelson of Florida
Daniel Akaka of Hawaii
Ben Cardin of Maryland
Debbie Stabenow of Michigan
Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota
Claire McCaskill of Missouri
Jon Tester of Montana
Ben Nelson of Nebraska
Bob Menendez of New Jersey
Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico
Kirsten Gillibrand of New York
Kent Conrad of North Dakota
Sherrod Brown of Ohio
Bob Casey, Jr. of Pennsylvania
Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island
Jim Webb of Virginia
Maria Cantwell of Washington
Joe Manchin of West Virginia
Herb Kohl of Wisconsin

Independent incumbents
Joe Lieberman of Connecticut
Bernie Sanders of Vermont

Republican incumbents
Jon Kyl of Arizona
Richard Lugar of Indiana
Olympia Snowe of Maine
Scott Brown of Massachusetts
Roger Wicker of Mississippi
John Ensign of Nevada
Bob Corker of Tennessee
Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas
Orrin Hatch of Utah
John Barrasso of Wyoming

1/6/2011 4:27:26 PM

http://www.fox5vegas.com/politics/26385034/detail.html

Quote :

"Republicans have already violated some of the vows they made in taking stewardship of the House. Their pledge to cut $100 billion from the budget in one year won't be kept."

http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/06/house-gop-trips-up-on-spending-cut-figure-it-could-have-corrected-long-ago/print/

Quote :

"“I actually don’t think it would be possible to fall from grace any faster than this,” Mark Meckler, with the Tea Party Patriots, told The Daily Caller. A few House Republican aides admitted to TheDC that the party had slipped up in failing to correct the $100 billion figure – first thrown out in the “Pledge to America” document released in late September – before this week."

1/6/2011 7:19:07 PM

Quote :

"^^No amendments are necessary."

When they pledge to allow amendments and then don't, it doesn't really matter whether you or the GOP deems it unnecessary that anyone but them contributes to it. That is kind of the whole point. And it wasn't just one bill. From that same article:

Quote :

"None of the bills that will be brought to the floor this week will be brought under open rules."

And to make matters worse:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/06/two-house-republicans-vot_n_805423.html

Quote :

"Two House Republicans Missed Swearing In While At A Fundraiser In The Capitol, Violating Constitution On Day It Was Read WASHINGTON -- Two House Republicans have cast votes as members of the 112th Congress, but were not sworn in on Wednesday, a violation of the Constitution on the same day that the GOP had the document read from the podium. The Republicans, incumbent Pete Sessions of Texas and freshman Mike Fitzpatrick, missed the swearing in because they were at a fundraiser in the Capitol Visitors Center."

1/6/2011 9:14:01 PM

phried

Quote :

"Cut Spending! Just don't ask 'em what to cut out."

Exactly:

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/06/boehner-cuts/

Quote :

"After Railing Against Government Spending, Speaker Boehner Can’t Name One Program He Would Cut Campaigning before the recent midterm elections, House Republicans were adamant that, if given power, they would cut government spending."

Quote :

"However, now that he holds the speaker’s gavel, it seems that Boehner is no better than his colleagues at actually identifying specifics in the budget that he would like to see eliminated. In an interview set to air tonight, NBC’s Brian Williams asked Boehner to name a specific item he’d cut, and Boehner couldn’t deliver: WILLIAMS: Name a program right now that we could do without. BOEHNER: I don’t think I have one off the top of my head. "

1/6/2011 10:03:56 PM

Quote :

"Boehner has had his share of taint"

1/6/2011 10:27:21 PM

Quote :

"In their second day in power the Republicans are already struggling with a major error. United States Representatives Pete Sessions (R-TX) and Mike Fitzpatrick (R-PA) both failed to attend the swearing in ceremony as required by the United States Constitution. Despite not swearing in, both representatives have been casting votes as if they were legal. The Republicans passed an important rules package and a number of procedural motions to repeal health care reform using the votes of Sessions and Fitzpatrick. Technically, that could invalidate all of the business of the House for the last two days. Ironically, the Republicans read the United States Constitution to open the House session today, but no one must have been listening to the portion which requires House members to be sworn in before performing their duties. As soon as the Republicans did discover their error late this afternoon they immediately went into recess to try and resolve the matter."

http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/gop-scrambles-after-two-representatives-illegally-cast-votes-without-taking-oath

Double poast!

1/6/2011 11:01:21 PM

I really can't think of a dumber fucking waste of time than having people read the constitution 2 sentences at a time.

1/7/2011 11:20:59 AM

Yeah. Most of Congress has read the Constitution, and they know what's in it. They just don't give a fuck. Sweet, intoxicating power over three hundred million people will do that to you.

1/7/2011 11:46:46 AM

Quote :

"When they pledge to allow amendments and then don't, it doesn't really matter whether you or the GOP deems it unnecessary that anyone but them contributes to it. That is kind of the whole point. And it wasn't just one bill."

In addition to that, they have already broken their pledge to put resolutions being voted on online for several days with a vote after 4 minutes of debate (2 minutes for each side). Granted it was a pretty simple thing, fixing it for those republicans who unconstitionally skipped the oath of office for a fundraiser and then voted as if they had been sworn in.

They are ignoring their own rules already when its convienent for them, or when they feel they don't need input from the other side on bills. While you can make decent justifications each time this happens, it kind of defeats the rules when they couldn't even go 1 week into the session before breaking them several times for their own benefit.

1/7/2011 9:32:22 PM

Republicans introduce bill to eliminate presidential 'czars'

Quote :

"A group of House Republicans introduced a bill on Wednesday to rein in the various "czars" in the Obama administration. Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) and 28 other House Republicans introduced legislation to do away with the informal, paid advisers President Obama has employed over the past two years. The legislation, which was introduced in the last Congress but was not allowed to advance under Democratic control, would do away with the 39 czars Obama has employed during his administration. The bill defines a czar as "a head of any task force, council, policy office within the Executive Office of the President, or similar office established by or at the direction of the President" who is appointed to a position that would otherwise require Senate confirmation. Republicans had complained about the president's use of czars to help advance his agenda in Congress. In particular, the GOP had harped about the personal history of Van Jones, the president's czar for "green jobs," over past comments Jones had made about Fox News came to light. Jones eventually resigned. Another prominent czar over the past year was Carol Browner, the president's energy and environmental adviser. She helped head up efforts in response to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, and the ultimately unsuccessful effort for an energy and climate bill from Congress. Republicans introduced several bills to eliminate czars in the last Congress, but similar legislation could conceivably advance in the House now that the GOP controls the chamber. "We haven’t gotten an indication of an exact timeline for committee action, considering that the bill was just filed yesterday," said Scalise spokesman Stephen Bell. "We hope to have this discussion in the near future as the congressman works to pursue all the bills he has introduced in the 112th Congress." "

I'm undecided about the idea of removing czars, I think some of the positions are probably needed but wonder about the effectiveness of some others.

However, I don't understand why this is being sold as a democratic party or obama creation? republicans had czars too, no one complained then.

1/8/2011 12:43:40 AM

^it's petty politics. they can push this through and appease the mouth-breathers that voted for them and claim it as some victory against the obama administration, when in reality it won't change a goddamn thing. they're just eliminating a bogus threat that they completely fabricated to begin with.

1/8/2011 1:02:31 AM

I'd be more than happy to stop paying the czars. These guys are gaining tons of credo and influence just by being associated with the administration, no need to put the taxpayers on the hook for their "services" as well. And anyway (maybe its in the link, I haven't read) does the President have unlimited authority to create cabinet-like positions for any areas he sees fit and force the taxpayers to pay their stipend?

1/8/2011 9:53:35 AM

Quote :

"They are ignoring their own rules already when its convienent for them"

If you are talking about the two people who weren't sworn in, then you are being a bit foolish. Were the resolutions or whatnot already up before the original vote? Yes? ok, then they did what they promised. There was no reason to go through the motions at that point, as it had already been voted upon. Stop being a partisan douchebag

[Edited on January 8, 2011 at 1:41 PM. Reason : ]

1/8/2011 1:41:36 PM

^

Quote :

"None of the bills that will be brought to the floor this week will be brought under open rules."

1/8/2011 1:54:09 PM

Same shit different party. What I love is how they broke their own new rules to go ahead with health care repeal. Additionally the CBO says it will raise the debt by billions if repeal went through. So much for fiscal responsibility.

1/8/2011 7:25:08 PM

Well they already gave up on the whole fiscal responsibility/deficit credibility when they held up everything in the lame duck until the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy were renewed.

1/8/2011 7:58:22 PM

the tax-cuts for everyone else were far more than the tax cuts for 250k+. So, at least point that finger right back at yourself. If you REALLY cared about fiscal discipline, you'd be arguing for all of the cuts to expire. but you aren't, because you are just engaging in class warfare

1/8/2011 8:06:52 PM

^oSunds like something Palin would say....without checking the facts, the rich benefit the most from the cut....not the middle class....of course, you just follow what the talking heads say, huh?


Typical Tea Bagger

1/9/2011 7:25:39 PM

It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.

Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.

In today's economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit – why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.

It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today's economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates.

Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate.

A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues.

In those countries where income taxes are lower than in the United States, the ability to defer the payment of U.S. tax by retaining income in the subsidiary companies provides a tax advantage for companies operating through overseas subsidiaries that is not available to companies operating solely in the United States. Many American investors properly made use of this deferral in the conduct of their foreign investment.

Our present tax system ... exerts too heavy a drag on growth ... It reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking ... The present tax load ... distorts economic judgments and channels an undue amount of energy into efforts to avoid tax liabilities.

The present tax codes ... inhibit the mobility and formation of capital, add complexities and inequities which undermine the morale of the taxpayer, and make tax avoidance rather than market factors a prime consideration in too many economic decisions.

In short, it is a paradoxical truth that ... the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in [1980] has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.

The largest single barrier to full employment of our manpower and resources and to a higher rate of economic growth is the unrealistically heavy drag of federal income taxes on private purchasing power, initiative and incentive.

Expansion and modernization of the nation's productive plant is essential to accelerate economic growth and to improve the international competitive position of American industry ... An early stimulus to business investment will promote recovery and increase employment.

A bill [should] be presented to the Congress for action [this] year. It [should] include an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in both corporate and personal income taxes. It [should] include long-needed tax reform that logic and equity demand ... The billions of dollars this bill will place in the hands of the consumer and our businessmen will have both immediate and permanent benefits to our economy. Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job and a new salary. And these new jobs and new salaries can create other jobs and other salaries and more customers and more growth for an expanding American economy.

The administration [should] pledge itself to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes ... Next year's tax bill [would] reduce personal as well as corporate income taxes, for those in the lower brackets, who are certain to spend their additional take-home pay, and for those in the middle and upper brackets, who can thereby be encouraged to undertake additional efforts and enabled to invest more capital ... I am confident that the enactment of the right bill [this] year will in due course increase our gross national product by several times the amount of taxes actually cut.

1/9/2011 10:00:03 PM

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/138037-house-republican-aims-to-put-brakes-on-dont-ask-repeal

"House Republican aims to put brakes on repeal of 'Don't ask, don't tell'"

Quote :

"The aide said Hunter could introduce the bill as soon as Tuesday evening, adding that “15 to 20” members — so far all Republicans — have signed on. "

Pawlenty has already said if he's Pres, he'll bring DADT back, but it looks like the House is going to try to beat him to it.

1/14/2011 8:26:19 PM

Quote :

"oSunds like something Palin would say....without checking the facts, the rich benefit the most from the cut....not the middle class....of course, you just follow what the talking heads say, huh? "

If by "talking heads" you mean "the actual facts," then sure. The actual facts show that the tax cuts for the 250+ crowd cost far less than the cuts for every one else. it's a fucking fact, dude. I seem to recall that the cost for the 250+ crowd was around 700b, while everyone else was 3trillion.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/07/news/economy/tax_cut_deal_obama/index.htm
damn those facts

[Edited on January 14, 2011 at 8:49 PM. Reason : ]

1/14/2011 8:44:01 PM