White House says Republicans want to steal X-Mas!

[Deleted]

White House says Republicans want to steal Christmas

By Rachel Rose Hartman

Political Reporter

There's quite a lot of spin coming out of Washington this week concerning the debt ceiling, but here's a real doozy: Republicans want to destroy Christmas.

"Happy Holidays America: Boehner plan would have the debt ceiling all over again during the holiday season, which is critical for the economy," White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer tweeted Thursday about House Speaker John Boehner's two-step plan to raise the debt ceiling.

"It's like the debt ceiling debate that would ruin Christmas," senior White House advisor David Plouffe said yesterday on MSNBC's Daily Rundown.

"Let's throw into doubt whether or not the United States is going to go into default around Christmas. Brilliant," White House press secretary Jay Carney said at a press briefing Wednesday.

The White House is claiming that because the first phase of Boehner's plan--a $900 billion extension--expires around the beginning of next year, it will throw Congress into another debt ceiling debate and default scare during the holiday season.

The Republicans, of course, are the evil Grinches of this scenario.

But Republicans deny any potential return of the debt ceiling discussion in December. Boehner's office and the plan's supporters say the first-round extension will carry the government through at least late January.

In a blog post entitled, "Yes, David. There will be a Christmas," Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck responded specifically to Plouffe's interview by accusing the White House of "grasping for any excuse" to criticize Boehner's plan. He reiterated that the extension won't expire near the holidays.

"Certainly, no one wants to ruin Christmas. And thankfully for Mr. Plouffe, Americans have nothing to fear," Buck wrote.

[Deleted]

Both sides are getting down and dirty. Like preschool level dirty.

[Deleted]

To me it's not offensive. It shows the contempt that the Democratic party has for people. Sadly a lot of people BELIEVE THIS garbage.


I think I'll try it.

The democratic party wants to enslave people. No wait.

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY WANTS TO ENSLAVE PEOPLE. (in bigger letters so it must be even more true).

It doesn't matter if the above statement is true, it just matters how many people will believe it. Oh & of course the more you say something like that, the more some people will believe it. (gosh, the dems MUST be trying to enslave people because otherwise he wouldn't have said it). Duh on all political statements!

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

...the Independents' got it goin' on...

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

...the Independents' got it goin' ON...

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

...the Independents' GOT it goin' ON!


...believe it yet?

[henryclay]

I think it is pretty simple, myself. The Republicans want to bring spending under control NOW and the Democrats say they want to talk about it later.

I saw a blip of a boy at a townhall meeting, (he looked to be about 12 or 13), who asked the moderator why he faced a debt of, (I think he said), $48,000 and he's not even out of graammar school yet. The moderator brushed him off as being a set-up by some adult activist. He probably was a set-up, but anybody in their right mind must know he asked a fair question, but he never got an answer.

And that is where I see the future of the country. The Republicans want to act on the problem now and the Democrats don't even seem to know there is a problem.

Just a glance at this live shot of a vote being taken in the House bears that out. Not a single Democrat is voting to limit spending, and not a single Republican is voting to continue it.

Oops, the vote is over. There will be another vote on the Boehner debt limit bill at about 6:15 Eastern time tonight. It now includes a provisin for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. Harry Reid said if it passes and goes tio the Senatre he will Table it and not even take it up for a Senate vote.

American politics at work. So what does "one man one vote" mean when we have "Leaders" who won't even discuss the things most Americans want discussed?

www.c-span.org/Events/House-to-Vote-on-Revised-Debt-Ceiling-Bill/10737423174-2/

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

...hey henry, imo, it's a conservative vs. liberal continental divide... rather than an R v. D divide... although those are loosely related...

[henryclay]

They are voting now on the Boehner debt ceiling bill:

The bill passed 218 to 210, with some not voting. (The chair cut off the vote when they had enough for passage.) It now goes to the Senate where it will die. Maybe as earkly as tonight.

House Democrats encouraged the President to invoke the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution to unilaterally lift the debt ceiling without Congressional authorization.

www.c-span.org/Events/House-to-Vote-on-Revised-Debt-Ceiling-Bill/10737423174-2/

[henryclay]

toughtimes, maybe you can provide a scenario for anything like that to happen at a townhall meeting during a Q&A session. As for me, I have no idea what a 12 or 13 year old in capable of with today's information sources available to him. I know it is beyond my ability to grasp.

Personally I thought the individual debt per American was higher than $48,000. But I undwerstand that we are talking about tax money to be collected from every citizen, (which is a far cry from just those who pay taxes), above and beyond what is needed to fund the government any day of the year, and everybody is free to pick their own year.

But let's suppose it is "only" $48,000. That would mean that if I paid and extra $1,000 a year it would take me 48 years to pay my part. If we toss in today's interest rate to be paid on the part still due each year, it gets close to 75 years.

To me that's quite a load to pass on to future citizens in order to satisfy the lack of leadership we are being forced to live with now.

I think that's the overall message the boy's question was trying to make.

And no offense taken or meant.

[henryclay]

Here are the Republicans who voted against the bill (Freshman members are in bold): Amash (MI), Bachmann (MN), Broun (GA), Chaffetz (UT), Cravaack (MN), DesJarlais (TN), Duncan (SC), Graves (GA), Gowdy (SC), Huelskamp (KS), Johnson (IL), Jordan (OH), King (IA), Latham (IA), Connie Mack (FL), McClintock (CA), Mulvaney (SC), Ron Paul (TX), Tim Scott (SC), Southerland (FL), Walsh (IL), Wilson (SC).

The Senate is now voting to table, or discard, the House bill, after which Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) will bring up his version of a debt ceiling bill, which lasts through 2012 and cuts $2.2 billion in spending.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 29, 2011 16:17:09 GMT -5 @toughtimes said:

I agree with that. It is getting offensive.

embarrassing is the word that comes to my mind.

[henryclay]

Harry Reid won't evfen let the subject of The House Bill, (Balanced Budget Amendment), even be discussed on the floor of the Senate.

Democratic Leadership in action. Shades of how Obamacare came to be.

[henryclay]

Yes, toughtimes. And we could go back to WWII. the great depression, maybe even the Galveston flood of 1906, if there was one. And there has never been a serious effort to curtail how tax money is spent. The difference seems crystal clear to me though. Our government has found too many ways to spend it, and has found equally as many ways to violate all the "we-can't-do-without-it-any-longer" promises that "this" will be the last time.

That kind of thinking was a Washington mantra long before Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi or Hussein Barack Obama, but their stewardship has accelerated the inevitable result by decades, and now there is little or no wiggle room left. If you know of any rational reason , , or way , , for the past drunken sailor spending habits to continue, please share them.

And if the solution is to "tax the rich", please add the necessary footnotes to show how long it will be before there won't BE any more rich to tax, , , or that taxing the rich won't be enough to cover the spending habits that should have, , , and could have, , , , been tended to in 2011.

And as far as the $48,000 debt per person, I have no idea what the debt per person is, but I believe the debt clock says there are about 130 million tax returns filed every year. I have not done the arithmetic . . . maybe you will do it. . . . If you care to, please let us know how long it would take to pay off the debt if every one of those tax returns volunteered an extra $1,000 every year as I indicated in my example earlier.

How long would it take to pay off the debt? Then, if we go another year or two adding more trillions, with every tax return including an extra $1,000, how many generations will it take to pay off the debt?

Or is the entire idea buried in the thought that it's not a debt that needs to be repaid at all?

[djAdvocate]

Jul 29, 2011 21:23:45 GMT -5 henryclay said:

And if the solution is to "tax the rich", please add the necessary footnotes to show how long it will be before there won't BE any more rich to tax, , , or that taxing the rich won't be enough to cover the spending habits that should have, , , and could have, , , , been tended to in 2011.

yeah, right. like all the rich will just pack their little baby baggies and go home to mummy. RIGHT! are you aware how much that sounds like extortion, and how little it sounds like truth?

what was the top incremental tax rate during the 50's?

[henryclay]

what was the top incremental tax rate during the 50's?

I don't know dj, I know the4 entire interstate highway system was born in the 50's. What is going on now to compare to it?

And how many people was the government supporting off other taxpayer's efforts in the 50's?

I do remember that the standard deduction was $1,000 and the personal exemption was $600 per person on tax returns. There was no earned income credit, no child care deduction, no credit for school costs, no deduction for student loans, no tax shelters for 401K's, no Section 179 write offs, no accelerated depreciation, no tax shelters, and no deductions for union dues.

So, if you want to "tax the rich" more, are you just as willing to go back to the other tax computation figures of the 50's too?

[djAdvocate]

Jul 29, 2011 21:41:10 GMT -5 henryclay said:

what was the top incremental tax rate during the 50's?

I don't know dj, I know the4 entire interstate highway system was born in the 50's. What is going on now to compare to it?

lots of things. hell, MAINTAINING that system compares to it.

the answer is 94% it is surprising how few people know that. my point was that it did not drive entrepreneurs out of the US then. quite the contrary. entrepreneurs came from the world around to be here.

[WannabeWealthy]

LOL @ Henry!

A lot of Republicans want to push this idea that the country is stealing from the rich. Yet, it's the rich that likes to sit on their dollars and not use it to help keep this economy rolling. Unemployment is still at a record high and the Bush Tax Cuts remain and it has done NOTHING for the middle class looking for work.

Btw, Tax cuts costs the government revenue to keep things operating (i.e. military, schools, roads, etc..)

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Jul 29, 2011 23:57:50 GMT -5 WannabeWealthy said:

LOL @ Henry!

A lot of Republicans want to push this idea that the country is stealing from the rich. Yet, it's the rich that likes to sit on their dollars and not use it to help keep this economy rolling. Unemployment is still at a record high and the Bush Tax Cuts remain and it has done NOTHING for the middle class looking for work.

Btw, Tax cuts costs the government revenue to keep things operating (i.e. military, schools, roads, etc..)

...sometimes, I just feel like throwing up my hands and saying, "ahem, I'm using my dollars exactly how I want them to be in use, so back off!"

[henryclay]

Yeah, the interest on the debt today approximates the total costs, (and leaves the debt itself intact), of WWII.

And I see the comments above say it's okay to apply the tax regulations of the 50 to the "rich", but "no" to the question about using those same tax regulations for everybody else, for especially the "me first" crowd.

More "tax somebody else" syndrome at work. It's a sign of the "new" America.

[ugonow]

It is just more fear mongering.But the Christmas shopping season would be a bad time for government employees,and others recieving government checks to be worried about getting paid.Many places count on that season to survive. Maybe we should kick it down the road 8 months....

[jkapp]

Jul 29, 2011 15:56:32 GMT -5 @anne81 said:

White House says Republicans want to steal Christmas

By Rachel Rose Hartman

Political Reporter

There's quite a lot of spin coming out of Washington this week concerning the debt ceiling, but here's a real doozy: Republicans want to destroy Christmas.

"Happy Holidays America: Boehner plan would have the debt ceiling all over again during the holiday season, which is critical for the economy," White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer tweeted Thursday about House Speaker John Boehner's two-step plan to raise the debt ceiling.

"It's like the debt ceiling debate that would ruin Christmas," senior White House advisor David Plouffe said yesterday on MSNBC's Daily Rundown.

"Let's throw into doubt whether or not the United States is going to go into default around Christmas. Brilliant," White House press secretary Jay Carney said at a press briefing Wednesday.

The White House is claiming that because the first phase of Boehner's plan--a $900 billion extension--expires around the beginning of next year, it will throw Congress into another debt ceiling debate and default scare during the holiday season.

The Republicans, of course, are the evil Grinches of this scenario.

But Republicans deny any potential return of the debt ceiling discussion in December. Boehner's office and the plan's supporters say the first-round extension will carry the government through at least late January.

In a blog post entitled, "Yes, David. There will be a Christmas," Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck responded specifically to Plouffe's interview by accusing the White House of "grasping for any excuse" to criticize Boehner's plan. He reiterated that the extension won't expire near the holidays.

"Certainly, no one wants to ruin Christmas. And thankfully for Mr. Plouffe, Americans have nothing to fear," Buck wrote.

The Liberal left hates Christmas, so why would they care?

[jkapp]

Jul 29, 2011 21:29:32 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 29, 2011 21:23:45 GMT -5 henryclay said:

And if the solution is to "tax the rich", please add the necessary footnotes to show how long it will be before there won't BE any more rich to tax, , , or that taxing the rich won't be enough to cover the spending habits that should have, , , and could have, , , , been tended to in 2011.

yeah, right. like all the rich will just pack their little baby baggies and go home to mummy. RIGHT! are you aware how much that sounds like extortion, and how little it sounds like truth?

what was the top incremental tax rate during the 50's?

Just as extortionist as "pay us our welfare and entitlements or we will riot in the streets..."

[jkapp]

Jul 29, 2011 23:00:20 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 29, 2011 21:41:10 GMT -5 henryclay said:

I don't know dj, I know the4 entire interstate highway system was born in the 50's. What is going on now to compare to it?

lots of things. hell, MAINTAINING that system compares to it.

the answer is 94% it is surprising how few people know that. my point was that it did not drive entrepreneurs out of the US then. quite the contrary. entrepreneurs came from the world around to be here.

What other taxes do businesses pay now that they DIDN'T back then though? Also, how much regulation was on business compared to today? These all factor into the discussion.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 30, 2011 10:55:21 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Jul 29, 2011 21:29:32 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

yeah, right. like all the rich will just pack their little baby baggies and go home to mummy. RIGHT! are you aware how much that sounds like extortion, and how little it sounds like truth?

what was the top incremental tax rate during the 50's?

Just as extortionist as "pay us our welfare and entitlements or we will riot in the streets..."

that is a rather slanted view of what happened. but there is an element of truth to it. there was such massive unrest during the depression that the rich, fearing for their lives, agreed to the system of progressive taxation.

but that actually further reinforces my point. if the angry mob didn't drive them away in the 30's and 40's, and the 90+% tax rate didn't drive them away in the 50's and 60's, why would a 40% tax rate drive them away NOW?

[henryclay]

This discussion is going to eventually morph to blaming it all on Bush, so why don't we just cut it off now? I'd like the liberals to explain how any of it, whether we are talking about stealing Christmas or taxing the rich, why haven't we ever seen anything from the Democrats on how to prevent the, (there is nothing new here except the magnitude), current threats from happening again and again, when they haven't even passed a budget during all the time Obama has been in office.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 30, 2011 11:01:44 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Jul 29, 2011 23:00:20 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

lots of things. hell, MAINTAINING that system compares to it.

the answer is 94% it is surprising how few people know that. my point was that it did not drive entrepreneurs out of the US then. quite the contrary. entrepreneurs came from the world around to be here.

What other taxes do businesses pay now that they DIDN'T back then though? Also, how much regulation was on business compared to today? These all factor into the discussion.

regulations are a whole different can of worms for a business. but i would argue that they are different than taxation in that they have to be accounted for prior to taking profit, not after.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Jul 30, 2011 11:02:55 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 30, 2011 10:55:21 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Just as extortionist as "pay us our welfare and entitlements or we will riot in the streets..."

that is a rather slanted view of what happened. but there is an element of truth to it. there was such massive unrest during the depression that the rich, fearing for their lives, agreed to the system of progressive taxation.

but that actually further reinforces my point. if the angry mob didn't drive them away in the 30's and 40's, and the 90+% tax rate didn't drive them away in the 50's and 60's, why would a 40% tax rate drive them away NOW?

...the aero-plane...


ETA: ...I'll give telecommunications a shout out, too...

[djAdvocate]

Jul 30, 2011 11:17:10 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

Jul 30, 2011 11:02:55 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

that is a rather slanted view of what happened. but there is an element of truth to it. there was such massive unrest during the depression that the rich, fearing for their lives, agreed to the system of progressive taxation.

but that actually further reinforces my point. if the angry mob didn't drive them away in the 30's and 40's, and the 90+% tax rate didn't drive them away in the 50's and 60's, why would a 40% tax rate drive them away NOW?

...the aero-plane...


ETA: ...I'll give telecommunications a shout out, too...

well, that is certainly true of the 30's and 40's, but not the 50's and 60's.

seriously tho. if i am going to leave here, it won't be because of taxes. it will be because American Manufacturers are no longer buying what i sell. i have to be where the market is. face to face is the only way. that is why i have not been overrun by China already.

[henryclay]

but that actually further reinforces my point. if the angry mob didn't drive them away in the 30's and 40's, and the 90+% tax rate didn't drive them away in the 50's and 60's, why would a 40% tax rate drive them away NOW?

Why? Do you really mean you don't know why? Perhaps I can explain it . A friendlier, (as in non-union), foreign labor market combined with a very unfriendly unionized labor AND a price based retail market for goods produced in the US will do it every time.

American Manufacturers are no longer buying what i sell.

Whether American MANUFATURERS are buying your product is of no consequence. Why would THEY buy anything they can't turn around and sell?