A huge win for nobody.


Senate given bill 3 minutes before vote:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/senators-got-154-page-fiscal-cliff-bill-3-minutes-voting-it

GE, Goldman get tax credits in bill:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/tim-carney-how-corporate-tax-credits-got-in-the-cliff-deal/article/2517397

someone please explain in short and easy to understand words exactly what the purpose was of holding up the passage of this bill - I'm not inclined to follow along closely to the news reports on the whole process and ultimately feel most of the 'argument' was political posturing.

someone dissuade me or something, I'm dumb.

It's the deficit-reduction package that doesn't reduce the deficit. It's the debt-ceiling deal that doesn't touch the debt ceiling

Our government feels like a fucking joke sometimes.

sometimes?

where the hell is punkdavid, for crying out loud.

nope, you got it right.

i'm just happy my wife still has a job. wind power production tax credits ftw!

Yes, the federal government is obscenely wasteful, hopelessly bloated, generally incompetent. It's the one thing that everyone who visits this page would agree on.

Yet many people are in favor of the tax hikes in the bill.

I will never understand, as long as I live, why so many people offer, insist, demand on giving this government more and more money.

2.5 trilliion in "revenue" last year...it's not enough, it's never enough.

It pains me to defend the government, but like Stip said in the old thread, at some point we have to accept some blame ourselves for this mess. We want endless defense spending, huge social safety nets, an expansive role for federal government, and low taxes all at the same time and our elected officials are providing that for us. It's not indefintely sustainable, but we keep demanding it.

well the government does a lot of really important stuff. I take issue with MIB's post. Ask people on medicare, medicaid, unemployment insurance, social security, the students in my classroom who can afford college due to pell grants, the people who enjoy drinking clean water, the kids in head start programs, the people who work for health and human services, people doing research on diseases, people who enjoy going to national parks, people who drive on public highways, etc.

The government wastes money. The government spends money that provides important social services and stimulates economic growth. The important discussion is never 'should the government spend money.' it should always be 'should the government be spending THIS particular money on THIS particular service/program/tax incentive/etc. We'll have much better government if we stop turning it into a fight about whether or not government should exist and more about whether or a particular program can accomplish the end goals of that program more effectively than alternatives, or if this particular program is even worth having.

More popular than Congress:
Nickelback
Traffic Jams
NFL Replacement Refs
Lice
Donald Trump
France
Genghis Khan
Root Canals
cockroaches
used car salesmen
colonoscopies
carnies
Brussels sprouts

Less Popular than Congress
telemarketers
John Edwards
Kardashians
Lobbyists
North Korea
ebola
Lindsay Lohan
Fidel Castro
pundits
bullies
Meth labs
Communism
The Clap

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/ ... 10813_.pdf

Survey of American Voters: We hate Congress!!!
Actions of American Voters: We re-elect the same people to lead Congress!!

Do I understand correctly that the democratic congressional leadership has threatened to actually propose a budget? Its funny that its a threat directed to republicans (who will then have to respond) when normally its an yearly obligation that the governing party has failed to do since... when exactly?

And what is the implied threat? The dems will *shudder* keep defense spending at current levels instead of an unstoppable upswing? What precisely are the Republicans pushing back at? Although the discretionary budget is filled with all sorts of questionable spending, its not a big item. No one seriously wants to address the deficit because it requires asking retirees to make do with less, and well we can't ask upper middle class Americans to get by without their welfare. Based on demographics, relatively few grandmas will have to survive on cat food without social security. We should probably reserve it for those who would and tell the others to make do with the 401ks and pensions that are far more generous than current workers can reasonably expect.

It doesn't at all seem unecessarily complicated that the budget be determined in one set of legislation and borrowing in another. If they were coupled together we would both lose the pageantry and well, they'd jack up borrowing when no one was paying attention. Balanced budgets, how do they work!?

You can have my tax breaks and govvie contracts when you pry them from my cold dead hands. My lawn is not going to mow itself, good sir.

This is getting close.

.

I'd be more worried about this if every politician out there were saying "will, would" instead of "might, may, could" when talking about the effects of these budget "cuts".