Despite political arm twisted of a kind you would expect from the likes of Nancy Pelosi or Adolf Hitler, Boehner didn't get his way last night!

In a humiliating blow to the authority of John Boehner, the Speaker of the House, Republican members of Congress made clear they would reject his "Plan B" because it included proposals for a tax rise on those making more than $1 million a year.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/9759923/Fiscal-cliff-John-Boehner-forced-to-abandon-Plan-B-after-Republican-rebellion.html

There may yet, be hope for the Republicans...

This could lead to his downfall as a so called leader, it could also throw this whole mess in the laps of the Dims and force them into owning the entire fiscal cliff mess.
Either way, it is a win for our side, especially if it helps us purge a huge RINO.

At the risk of branding myself as an evil "moderate" and incurring the wrath of the forum, I want to offer another opinion.  First, I have been frustrated at Boehner as have many of you.  He often struck me as too willing to make a deal.  I also despise the socialism of this administration.  It is a cancer on this country.

However, I think there is something to be said to think strategically, sometimes not getting all you want in the short term to gain an advantage in the long term.  If Plan B had passed the House, it would have called the Dems' bluff, repudiating something they campaigned on that had resonated with the masses - their claim that the GOP was protecting millionaires and billionaires at the expense of the middle class.  It would have put the Dems on the defensive, taking that talking point off the table.  They they would have had to choose between letting taxes go up for everyone or doing some real spending reform.  There are points made in this article that I think should be considered:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/21/gut-check-time-for-conservative-cliff-jumpers/

Quote from: USAPatriot on December 21, 2012, 08:43:58 AM
At the risk of branding myself as an evil "moderate" and incurring the wrath of the forum, I want to offer another opinion.  First, I have been frustrated at Boehner as have many of you.  He often struck me as too willing to make a deal.  I also despise the socialism of this administration.  It is a cancer on this country.

However, I think there is something to be said to think strategically, sometimes not getting all you want in the short term to gain an advantage in the long term.  If Plan B had passed the House, it would have called the Dems' bluff, repudiating something they campaigned on that had resonated with the masses - their claim that the GOP was protecting millionaires and billionaires at the expense of the middle class.  It would have put the Dems on the defensive, taking that talking point off the table.  They they would have had to choose between letting taxes go up for everyone or doing some real spending reform.  There are points made in this article that I think should be considered:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/21/gut-check-time-for-conservative-cliff-jumpers/

I understand where you are coming from. We offer our compromise and then, when Obama rejects it the onus is on him to compromise too. You think the press will say, "Hey, Obama, the Republicans have met you half way, now it is your turn.".

That is not the way it works.

If the bill had been passed and sent to the Senate, it still would have been rejected by Obama and his sock puppet Whorehouse Harry Reid. Instead of placing the blame on Obama and the Democrats, the media would have blamed the Republicans for not going the "extra mile" to meet the President halfway and work out a "balanced" solution.

The media and Democrats hate Republicans and Conservatives. It doesn't matter what we say or what we do, that will never change. To them, we are the enemy.

I say we should stand our ground and let the chips fall where they may!

"If we are to be damned, let us be damned for what we truly are."
-Jean-Luc Picard, Star Trek: The Next Generation - Encounter at Farpoint

Quote from: Solar on December 21, 2012, 07:40:20 AM
This could lead to his downfall as a so called leader, it could also throw this whole mess in the laps of the Dims and force them into owning the entire fiscal cliff mess.
Either way, it is a win for our side, especially if it helps us purge a huge RINO.

Now your speaking my language.

Quote from: Darth Fife on December 21, 2012, 09:27:53 AM
I understand where you are coming from. We offer our compromise and then, when Obama rejects it the onus is on him to compromise too. You think the press will say, "Hey, Obama, the Republicans have met you half way, now it is your turn.".

That is not the way it works.

If the bill had been passed and sent to the Senate, it still would have been rejected by Obama and his sock puppet Whorehouse Harry Reid. Instead of placing the blame on Obama and the Democrats, the media would have blamed the Republicans for not going the "extra mile" to meet the President halfway and work out a "balanced" solution.

The media and Democrats hate Republicans and Conservatives. It doesn't matter what we say or what we do, that will never change. To them, we are the enemy.

I say we should stand our ground and let the chips fall where they may!

"If we are to be damned, let us be damned for what we truly are."
-Jean-Luc Picard, Star Trek: The Next Generation - Encounter at Farpoint

I can't say you're wrong.  I despise the media.  During the campaign, they changed from just being biased to being willing accomplices in the campaign of smears and lies.  Whatever happens, they will try to spin anything against the GOP.  But still, if the GOP appeared as "reasonable" to most people, their job at spinning would be harder and more people would see the truth.

Quote from: USAPatriot on December 21, 2012, 10:19:21 AM
I can't say you're wrong.  I despise the media.  During the campaign, they changed from just being biased to being willing accomplices in the campaign of smears and lies.  Whatever happens, they will try to spin anything against the GOP.  But still, if the GOP appeared as "reasonable" to most people, their job at spinning would be harder and more people would see the truth.

What is unreasonable about not raising taxes on people who already pay the lion's share of the taxes, and who are the very people who create jobs this country so desperately needs?

A couple things:
A) "Small business owners" - S corps average about $100,000 in profit each year, sole proprietorships even less. Raising taxes on people making over $250,000 a year would affect about 3% of small businesses in America, even less if that limit were raised to $1 million. So no. Raising taxes on the rich will not cripple small businesses. Also: The top wage earners are comprised mostly of bankers, lawyers, doctors and executives. I don't see much in the way of job creators there.
B) The CRS nonpartisan tax study from September shows that low taxes on the rich does NOT spur economic growth. So no, higher taxes on the rich will not ruin the economy, just like the economy didn't spiral into a recession when Clinton raised taxes. Or when Eisenhower did it. Or FDR. In fact, in each case, when taxes were raised we experienced a booming economy afterwards. Trickle down economics does. not. work.
C) The idea that Democrats aren't trying to work with Republicans is not true. Boehner and Obama had been trading bargains on the exact amount of tax revenue for days before the ultra conservative wing effectively "walked out" on the negotiations. I might remind conservatives that this is politics, not a dictatorship. Compromise is necessary to the survival of a democracy, and gathering up your toys and stalking off is neither mature nor responsible leadership.
D) The reason that rich people pay most of the taxes is because they MAKE the overwhelming majority of money in this country. The top 1% alone makes 20% of the nation's wealth, and even then many of them get out of paying the current tax rate by deferring wages and using tax shelters. So dollar for dollar? Yes. Rich people pay more, and that is correct because they MAKE more. Much much much more than the rest of us.
E) The majority of America wants higher taxes on the wealthy. That is not a liberal fabrication; even Fox News shows those numbers. It is the will of the people. Rich people and Wall Street effectively broke the economy with fraudulent and corrupt practices, and the middle class bailed them out. It's time they contributed.

Quote from: Darth Fife on December 21, 2012, 11:03:20 AM
What is unreasonable about not raising taxes on people who already pay the lion's share of the taxes, and who are the very people who create jobs this country so desperately needs?

I agree completely.  The whole notion of "fair share" is intellectually dishonest not only for the reason you mentioned but that that point is not self limiting.  Specifically, what is so unfair about 35% that would be so fair at 39.8%?   Is there any doubt if the wealthy were already paying what Obama says is fair, he would say it is unfair and want yet higher?  But in the short term, I think there would have been value in taking the Dems' argument that the GOP is holding the middle class hostage in favor of millionaires and billionaires off the table.

Also re: rich people paying the "lion's share": The top 1% of earners make 35% of the ENTIRE wealth in this country as of last year, and the top 10% make 75%, while the bottom 50% earned 1.1% of the wealth. That's combined. If we REALLY wanted to make it fair, everyone would pay the taxes they owed corresponding to how much they actually had.
(And before you accuse me of liberal news sources, this is where I get my info: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33433.pdf

Quote from: USAPatriot on December 21, 2012, 10:19:21 AM
I can't say you're wrong.  I despise the media.  During the campaign, they changed from just being biased to being willing accomplices in the campaign of smears and lies.  Whatever happens, they will try to spin anything against the GOP.  But still, if the GOP appeared as "reasonable" to most people, their job at spinning would be harder and more people would see the truth.

It isn't about people seeing Republicans as "reasonable".  For people seeing the truth, I just don't think that is reality, therefore, it makes no sense to compromise the country or our freedoms.

Quote from: thefirebrand on December 21, 2012, 11:41:37 AM
A couple things:
A) "Small business owners" - S corps average about $100,000 in profit each year, sole proprietorships even less. Raising taxes on people making over $250,000 a year would affect about 3% of small businesses in America, even less if that limit were raised to $1 million. So no. Raising taxes on the rich will not cripple small businesses. Also: The top wage earners are comprised mostly of bankers, lawyers, doctors and executives. I don't see much in the way of job creators there.

Incorrect.  Small businesses would be very much affected by tax increases.

Quote
B) The CRS nonpartisan tax study from September shows that low taxes on the rich does NOT spur economic growth. So no, higher taxes on the rich will not ruin the economy, just like the economy didn't spiral into a recession when Clinton raised taxes. Or when Eisenhower did it. Or FDR. In fact, in each case, when taxes were raised we experienced a booming economy afterwards. Trickle down economics does. not. work.

Wrong.

Quote
C) The idea that Democrats aren't trying to work with Republicans is not true. Boehner and Obama had been trading bargains on the exact amount of tax revenue for days before the ultra conservative wing effectively "walked out" on the negotiations. I might remind conservatives that this is politics, not a dictatorship. Compromise is necessary to the survival of a democracy, and gathering up your toys and stalking off is neither mature nor responsible leadership.

I'm glad conservatives walk out on negotiations that are about destroying the country.

Quote
D) The reason that rich people pay most of the taxes is because they MAKE the overwhelming majority of money in this country. The top 1% alone makes 20% of the nation's wealth, and even then many of them get out of paying the current tax rate by deferring wages and using tax shelters. So dollar for dollar? Yes. Rich people pay more, and that is correct because they MAKE more. Much much much more than the rest of us.

Wrong.  You just have wealth envy because you are unhappy with your life.

Quote
E) The majority of America wants higher taxes on the wealthy. That is not a liberal fabrication; even Fox News shows those numbers. It is the will of the people. Rich people and Wall Street effectively broke the economy with fraudulent and corrupt practices, and the middle class bailed them out. It's time they contributed.

Wrong.  Most people want to keep more of their money, and don't hate rich people.

Quote from: thefirebrand on December 21, 2012, 12:29:44 PM
Also re: rich people paying the "lion's share": The top 1% of earners make 35% of the ENTIRE wealth in this country as of last year, and the top 10% make 75%, while the bottom 50% earned 1.1% of the wealth. That's combined. If we REALLY wanted to make it fair, everyone would pay the taxes they owed corresponding to how much they actually had.
(And before you accuse me of liberal news sources, this is where I get my info: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33433.pdf

Raising taxes on the rich does absolutely nothing to dent the debt, none!
Why aren't you focusing ion the real issue? SPENDING!

Quote from: Solar on December 21, 2012, 01:27:00 PM
Raising taxes on the rich does absolutely nothing to dent the debt, none!
Why aren't you focusing ion the real issue? SPENDING!

Wait...are you actually saying that adding 50 billion each year in revenue does nothing to dent the debt? Because that's what will be added by raising taxes as Obama proposes. If that is indeed what you mean, that would be like saying that getting a raise is pointless because it doesn't bring in more money.
I understand what you mean about spending, but I would wager that we differ on WHAT spending should be cut. Here's a handy graph of what comprises the national debt: http://www.laobserved.com/biz/debt3.jpeg
Two wars (unfunded), huge tax cuts for everyone, a recession (which, again, was largely due to improper and fraudulent practices by banks and the mortgage industry) and the recovery comprise most of the debt, and that's where we should be putting most of our energy. Defense spending is ridiculous, and should be decreased. Aid to other countries should be curtailed, as well as subsidies for large and VERY successful corporations. But cutting aid to poor people, children and the elderly should be the LAST idea we entertain.

Quote from: thefirebrand on December 21, 2012, 12:29:44 PM
Also re: rich people paying the "lion's share": The top 1% of earners make 35% of the ENTIRE wealth in this country as of last year, and the top 10% make 75%, while the bottom 50% earned 1.1% of the wealth. That's combined. If we REALLY wanted to make it fair, everyone would pay the taxes they owed corresponding to how much they actually had.
(And before you accuse me of liberal news sources, this is where I get my info: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33433.pdf

You are just plain wrong.

Look at the chart I posted based on data provided by the IRS itself.

The top 1% make 19% of the total income in this country, yet pay 37% of all Income Tax Revenue.

Now, if you are playing at semantics (as Liberals love to do)  , talking about "wealth" rather than "income", here is news for you. Raising the tax rate doesn't affect "wealth" of the so-called Rich!