Skip to main content

View Diary: NYT: Senate Dems seek one-year 'pause' in sequestration cuts as part of deal (164 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  House Republicans will reject any deal... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JCPOK, a2nite, Dancing Frog, MPociask, Matt Z

    that includes tax increases of any amount on anybody.

    Their line in the sand is ZERO tax increases for any income, even million and above.

    Any deal that includes tax increases will fail without Democratic support.  Boehner would have to turn to Dems to pass it and that would be his death knell as House Speaker.

    There will be no deal.

    Tax and Spend I can understand. I can even understand Borrow and Spend. But Borrow and give Billionaires tax cuts? That I have a problem with.

    by LiberalCanuck on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 10:08:50 AM PST

    •  I hope so (8+ / 0-)

      Better deal on the other side of the cliff.

      •  I hope so too (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MPociask

        But I have been dreading that the $400K would find its way into these negotiation because Congress doesnt like to pay its fair share or something like that. It seems that the joke is on the Progressives. Sigh! A nightmare seems to be unfolding in front of our very eyes.
        I get the sense that President had decided a while ago that he is willing to throw the Progressives under the bus: there was a glimmer of hope last week.
        I am hoping against hope that the Democrats dont do a deal. No deal is better than a bad deal: and we can pass new legislature in 2013 with the intransigents in the Republican party voting with their tail between their legs. My only hope is that Joe Biden does the right thing and stands up for the middle class.  Well, that is all there is to this debate i guess.

        We should ask the Congress to scale back their pay to $250K if they pass this deal so that they can pay their fair share of taxes.

        •  Please don't use the term "under the bus" again... (0+ / 0-)

          It is the most overused term since 2008 and it is time to kill it.

          If you mean, the President has determined he can get a deal without progressive support, please say that instead of "under the bus".

          Thanks.

          Tax and Spend I can understand. I can even understand Borrow and Spend. But Borrow and give Billionaires tax cuts? That I have a problem with.

          by LiberalCanuck on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 10:24:31 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hmm, no I think I'll keep using it (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dservgun

            since I'm more interested in the effect of the deals on people's lives (including mine) than I am in politics as a chess game amongst wealthy privileged guys sitting in white buildings 12 mi south of me.

            I'm not averse to analyzing the chess game, but the reason I come to this site is so that I can assess how the game is going to affect ordinary people like myself. If I think we're being thrown under the bus as the result of a deal, I'll say so.

            No offense intended.

            if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

            by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 12:09:11 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  I hope so too-but what if Boehner gets UC to bring (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mr Robert

        it up - then noone in his caucus has to actually VOTE for it...

        [UC = unanimous consent, just FTR]

      •  Pretty sad (0+ / 0-)

        that we have to root for Republicans to not agree to the shitty deals that Democrats agree to.

        "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." - George W Bush

        by jfern on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 10:26:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site