Your Talking Points memo is lying.
Regards,
Shodan
So, as usual, you got nothin’.
Well, given that this board doesn’t allow you to post a picture of yourself sticking your fingers in your ears and humming really loud, I suppose this is the best rebuttal you can offer.
Facts:
October 26, 2011: Democrats first super committee offer is $3 trillion in deficit reduction comprised of about $1.3 trillion in revenues and $1.7 trillion in spending cuts, including cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. Republicans immediately reject it. Republicans’ first super committee offer is $2.2 trillion in deficit reduction, which includes no new tax revenues.
November 8, 2011: Republicans’ second super committee offer is $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction. It does include $300 billion in new tax revenue, but in exchange for extending the Bush tax cuts and lowering the top tax rate. The plan would ultimately cut taxes for the wealthy and raise them for everyone else.
November 10, 2011: Democrats’ second offer is $2.3 trillion in deficit reduction, consisting of $1.3 trillion in spending cuts and $1 trillion in revenue. The revenue would be split between $350 billion in concrete measures and $650 billion in future tax reform. Republicans reject it.
November 11, 2011: Democrats agree to Republicans’ top lines including just $400 billion in revenues and $875 billion in spending cuts, but refuse to accept the GOP’s tax cut for the rich. Republicans reject it and make their final offer: $640 billion in spending cuts and $3 billion in revenues.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/11/21/373979/republicans-taxes-timeline/
Thank you for posting the factual data about proposals and counter proposals, Ca3799 To me, at least, a couple of things are clear from this:
- The Democrats consistently put forward proposals with more deficit reduction.
- The Democrats are agreeing to spending cuts
- Any tax increases that the Republicans agree to are linked to maintaining and increasing tax cuts for the wealthy
- Republicans rejected the latest Democrat compromise
I look forward to Shodan telling me that I’m lying.
Well, somebody is lying, but it seems to be Fox news. If you are watching them a lot, then I think I have identified the problem of why you are so misinformed.
For example:
“[P]eople who watch Fox News, the most popular of the 24-hour cable news networks, are 18-points less likely to know that Egyptians overthrew their government than those who watch no news at all. Fox News watchers are also 6-points less likely to know that Syrians have not yet overthrown their government than those who watch no news.”
Also, pepper spray is a vegetable!
You didn’t read your own cite very closely, did you?
Only if selective perception is a lie.
After a certain point, it might as well be.
Regards,
Shodan
Serve it in the schools!
You are living in a fantasy world. You have been lied to. It’s not your fault, everyone around you is as gullible and dim as you are.
But you can get help. You don’t have to live being angry at things that are not true. You can base your opinions and ideas on reality. But you won’t.
Fact: Pat Toomey is a dipshit who couldn’t legislate his way out of a wet paper bag when he was a US Rep up here, and it appears running for Senate cost him his remaining few brain cells.
And that leads to an idea I had last night, and revised this morning.
What one provision in the Supercommittee law would have given the most guarantee that the committee members would have done their fucking job?
A provision to automatically cut Congressional pay by 50% along with all the other automatic cuts. Or more workably, to automatically redirect 50% of Congressional pay into paying down the federal debt. (Where “workably” means “best effort to comply with Amendment XXVII.”)
nvm
You’re assuming they give a flying fuck about their Congressional paychecks. Many are independently wealthy and have no need for their pay, many are taking money under the table from their corporate masters.
Yeah because they are very likely to vote that into law.
The problem with the supercommittee is that it didn’t produce any different a dynamic than what already existed.
Republicans were still resistant to the sort of tax increases that were a necessary part of any agreement with Democrats and Democrats keep insisting that if we are going to cut entitlements, then we should have robust tax increases to reduce the severity of the entitlement cuts.
I wonder if the electorate understands that entitlements is a fancy word for medicare and social security.
I wonder if you could present some facts to me that bolster your point of view, instead of furiously masturbating to your content-free posts.
Thanks in advance.
Can’t we all just be Super Friends[sup]TM[/sup] and get along?
I call dibs on Green Lantern.
Since Shodan is already all wet, he can be Aquaman.
I am Iron Man.
Wait, wrong universe. Can we be Avengers[sup]TM[/sup], too?
Superman: "Green Lantern, you and Wonder Woman head to the Alien Ship. Batman, see what you can find out about the infiltrators they have in Earth’s underworld. Apache Chief and Samurai, you need to hold the line against their war machines. Flash and I are the fastest, so we’ll collect the parts of the deflector array.
And Aquaman, why don’t you go talk to some fish."
The funny thing is, he’s actually not quite as useless as people make him out to be. But not by much…