Comments on: Why would any conservative vote against a $4.1 trillion tax cut?

By: john.frank

john.frank — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 19:39:57 +0000

Only in Washington would someone say that not allowing taxes to increase is a tax cut.

By: changer1701

changer1701 — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 19:14:25 +0000

No deal is the best deal. Obama won’t accept it and we’re still compromising with ourselves.

alwaysfiredup on December 20, 2012 at 1:22 PM

If he’s not going to accept anything, the House may as well pass something the Dems proposed themselves this past spring and let them explain why, suddenly, that’s not good enough and going over the cliff is preferable.

By: astonerii

astonerii — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 19:10:59 +0000

Depends on what they are. If they make our tax code more progressive I would argue they should be voted against. I am in the tax area where taxes are a moderate pain in the butt, I want my taxes raised a little bit and EVERYONE below me raised A MASSIVE amount, particularly those who earn money and pay nothing in taxes.

By: tommy71

tommy71 — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 19:03:27 +0000

If the pubs look like they’re only looking out for the rich, they’re sunk. When you’re in a hole, stop digging. All that purity to ideology is nice and dandy, but you need to win first.

By: besser tot als rot

besser tot als rot — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 18:52:53 +0000

No deal is the best deal. Obama won’t accept it and we’re still compromising with ourselves.

alwaysfiredup on December 20, 2012 at 1:22 PM

I think letting Obama’s proposal pass out of the House is the best thing to do. Going over the cliff is going to let the Democrats come in and look like the middle class tax cutting heroes. And make the Republicans look like the party of the rich. At least something like this will help in the argument against that, but it still probably won’t do much. If I were Boehner, I’d pass a bill making the 200/250 and below rate permanent and then leave town. That is what Obama campaigned on and what he said he wants; if he doesn’t accept it (which I don’t think he will), there is no way to spin it. And, it is likely better than what we are going to get if we wait until next year when the Democrats get to pretend to be the tax cutting champions of the 98%.

By: besser tot als rot

besser tot als rot — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 18:47:45 +0000

Aargh! There are no tax cuts in any of the proposals. None. This is why people hate politicians. What they’re talking about is keeping the same tax rates that have been in effect for the past 10 years! No one will pay less in taxes next year than they did this year. But because tax cuts might go up, keeping them where they are is called a tax cut. Hey, I’ve got an idea! Why don’t we project taxes to go up to 99% on everyone next year, and then we can call this a 75% tax cut! Shump on December 20, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Yes, but on January 2nd when the Democrats propose it, it will be a tax cut. And then, they get to be the tax cutters and the Republicans will be the champions of high taxes for the middle class? That's not a winner politically.

By: Illinidiva

Illinidiva — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 18:36:50 +0000

Political cover.. so yes it is really important

By: Mitoch55

Mitoch55 — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 18:31:55 +0000

Because it's the spending, stupid!

By: alwaysfiredup

alwaysfiredup — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 18:22:46 +0000

Best deal the Rs can get.

Illinidiva on December 20, 2012 at 12:57 PM

No deal is the best deal. Obama won’t accept it and we’re still compromising with ourselves.

By: Rebar

Rebar — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 18:10:34 +0000

The simple fact is, 0bama WANTS to destroy the economy, thus he will never make any kind of deal that doesn't advance this agenda.