Watch the video. The anchor says so at the end.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Watch the video. The anchor says so at the end.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Alright but that is a false figure, he says the House of Representatives costs us that much for two weeks, not just specifically floor time. The House of Representatives includes pay for Congressmen and their staff, hearings held on various issues, cost of maintenance, food, electricity, etc etc. It isn't boiled down to just how much it costs for the main chamber for the specific sessions they are working on Obamacare.Originally Posted by Dark Sage
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
You're making excuses Roy. I gave you reliable proof, and you can't just brush aside the CBS Evening News like it was some scandal rag.
You saw all the points they made in the story. The House is wasting time when there are far more vital issues they have to address in the limited amount of time that they have, like the Bush tax cuts and the spending cuts. These things are going to hurt us more than than they claim the "tax" that the Affordable Health Care Act has ever will. But they were too busy pursuing a scheme to hurt Democrats that were up for re-election.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
I am not making excuses I am saying that it is a false number, unless they want to boil down the time to just the chamber time then it is a false number. I am not saying they are a scandal rag, I am giving you a nuanced perspective of it, take it or leave it.
By the way time on the Bush tax cuts? Democrats have already said loud and clear that they will not take anything but a full extension of it, yet Obama keeps pushing both the House and Senate to cut it for those making over $250,000 dollars despite heading back into a recession. Who's wasting time now?
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
If the GOP would be willing to compromise - which they have proven, time and again, they won't - and let the rich pay their share so that Warren Buffet's secretary doesn't pay a higher percentage than he does, it wouldn't be a problem.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
"“My recommendation is we give the president what he asked for,” McConnell said.
The political maneuver was used to demonstrate there likely are not the votes among Democrats to pass the president’s plan. That was a point underscored by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., when he objected moments later to the Republicans request to hold the vote."
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...amas-tax-plan/
"Worried about the fragile economy and their own upcoming elections, a growing number of Democrats are joining the rock-solid Republican opposition to President Barack Obama's plans to let some of the Bush administration's tax cuts expire.
Democratic leaders in Congress still back Obama, but the willingness to raise taxes is waning among the rank and file as the stagnant economy threatens the party's majority in the House and Senate.
"In my view this is no time to do anything that could be jarring to a fragile recovery," said Rep. Gerry Connolly of Virginia, a first-term Democrat."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_703973.html
From 2010 to Now the Democrats have refused to back ending the Bush Tax Cuts, not just the Republicans.
No problem because of course the economy is doing great right now? Right?
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
No, Roy, the economy isn't doing great...
But everyone with an annual paycheck over $250,000 is doing pretty well. I should know... My mother is in that group, even though she would never dream of voting for Romney. (My dad is retired, but he used to be in it too.)
Hear that, Roy? My family would pay more taxes if the President got his way, and I still support him.
Heck, Obama himself is in that group. And in a weird twist of fate, he'd pay a higher percentage than Romney if his own plan were approved.
And if these folks like this helped out a little, maybe those who weren't so lucky would do better.
Posting Permissions
