Fiscal Cliff Deal is Reached

[Antonio the Sixth]

God, even Bernie voted for it?

[Franzl]

God, even Bernie voted for it?

Yes.

But remember, he's a radical liberal communist!

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

I understand the far-rights arguement against the Deal, they just don't want to raise any taxes. But what does the left not like about it? Just because instead of Obama pushing for $250000, he compromised and got  $400,000?

[opebo]

I understand the far-rights arguement against the Deal, they just don't want to raise any taxes. But what does the left not like about it? Just because instead of Obama pushing for $250000, he compromised and got  $400,000?

I think because it didn't rectify the debt-limit issue, which can still allow the Republicans to force spending cuts at a time when we need to be increasing, not reducing, spending.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I understand the far-rights arguement against the Deal, they just don't want to raise any taxes. But what does the left not like about it? Just because instead of Obama pushing for $250000, he compromised and got $400,000?

Because that, like everything else about this, is basically a compromise on a compromise (and a completely silly, symbolic one at that), while pushing down the road (again) issues that Democrats will have far far less bargaining power over.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I understand the far-rights arguement against the Deal, they just don't want to raise any taxes. But what does the left not like about it? Just because instead of Obama pushing for $250000, he compromised and got  $400,000?

Because Obama gave up on literally anything apart from that miserable 4.6 point increase on the hyper-rich. All the cuts the GOP likes are made permanent, while everything the Democrats want to defend are only postponed by a couple months.

Democrats are morons.

[© tweed]

I understand the far-rights arguement against the Deal, they just don't want to raise any taxes. But what does the left not like about it? Just because instead of Obama pushing for $250000, he compromised and got  $400,000?

Because Obama gave up on literally anything apart from that miserable 4.6 point increase on the hyper-rich. All the cuts the GOP likes are made permanent, while everything the Democrats want to defend are only postponed by a couple months.

Democrats are morons.

or maybe they aren't who you think they are.  Obama would love to be etched into history as the president who destroyed the welfare state.

[Silent Hunter]

Well, it's a deal of some sort.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I understand the far-rights arguement against the Deal, they just don't want to raise any taxes. But what does the left not like about it? Just because instead of Obama pushing for $250000, he compromised and got  $400,000?

Because Obama gave up on literally anything apart from that miserable 4.6 point increase on the hyper-rich. All the cuts the GOP likes are made permanent, while everything the Democrats want to defend are only postponed by a couple months.

Democrats are morons.

or maybe they aren't who you think they are.  Obama would love to be etched into history as the president who destroyed the welfare state.

Yeah, sorry but I'd rather believe in the infinity of human stupidity rather than in some evil conspiracy.

[© tweed]

it's not a 'conspiracy', (as if it were some death knell if it were), follow the money.

[Blue3]

There were 8 nay votes who were they?

Tom Harkin, Iowa
Tom Carper, Delaware
Michael Bennet, Colorado
Marco Rubio, Florida
Chuck Grassley, Iowa
Mike Lee, Utah
Rand Paul, Kentucky
Richard Shelby, Alabama

Do we know who the 3 that didn't vote were?

I'm going to guess that it's Kirk, possibly DeMint, and someone else?

[Vosem]

There were 8 nay votes who were they?

Tom Harkin, Iowa
Tom Carper, Delaware
Michael Bennet, Colorado
Marco Rubio, Florida
Chuck Grassley, Iowa
Mike Lee, Utah
Rand Paul, Kentucky
Richard Shelby, Alabama

Do we know who the 3 that didn't vote were?

I'm going to guess that it's Kirk, possibly DeMint, and someone else?

The three who didn't vote were Senator DeMint, Senator Kirk, and Senator Lautenberg (D-New Jersey).

Constitutionally, all congressional votes except those which have to do with top-secret-defense-stuff are made public: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00251

[Paul Kemp]

Bill will be amended in the House to attach spending cuts...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://twitter.com/samsteinhp/status/286208462545903616

Saw somewhere else that it was going to be $1.5bil in cuts but can't confirm that.

[memphis]

Eric Cantor will not support. Somebody is feeling ambitious.

[Frodo]

Apparently the overwhelming majority of the House GOP caucus is opposed to this deal.

[memphis]

While seeing Boehner get booted from his position as speaker is going to be hilarious, his martyr routine afterward is going to be insufferable.

[Mr. Morden]

Forgive my ignorance on this, but the new Congress is sworn in on Jan. 3, correct?  So if the House doesn't act on the Senate bill by the end of the day on Jan. 2 (or passes it with amendments, not giving the Senate time to vote on the amended version), then the bill dies and we have to start over with the next Congress, right?  You can't have the current Senate pass one bill, then have the House hold onto it until we have a new Congress before they vote on it, right?  Any bills that have only been passed by one house of Congress get nullified once the new Congress is sworn in, is that correct?

[Joe Biden 2020]

When is the vote scheduled for?

[Comrade Funk]

This is a joke, but it's been this way for a while, so I shouldn't be surprised these radicals are rejecting the deal now.

[Iosif]

What a circus.

This is fun.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Forgive my ignorance on this, but the new Congress is sworn in on Jan. 3, correct?  So if the House doesn't act on the Senate bill by the end of the day on Jan. 2 (or passes it with amendments, not giving the Senate time to vote on the amended version), then the bill dies and we have to start over with the next Congress, right?  You can't have the current Senate pass one bill, then have the House hold onto it until we have a new Congress before they vote on it, right?  Any bills that have only been passed by one house of Congress get nullified once the new Congress is sworn in, is that correct?

Basically yes. So if we don't something through by tomorrow, we have to start over. Of course it wouldn't be too hard for the Senate to just repass the bill on Jan 3, and then send it straight to the more Democratic new House. I'm hoping that means a better bill, even if only slighly.

[Blue3]

When is the vote scheduled for?

It's been indefinitely postponed.

[Mr. Morden]

Forgive my ignorance on this, but the new Congress is sworn in on Jan. 3, correct?  So if the House doesn't act on the Senate bill by the end of the day on Jan. 2 (or passes it with amendments, not giving the Senate time to vote on the amended version), then the bill dies and we have to start over with the next Congress, right?  You can't have the current Senate pass one bill, then have the House hold onto it until we have a new Congress before they vote on it, right?  Any bills that have only been passed by one house of Congress get nullified once the new Congress is sworn in, is that correct?

Basically yes. So if we don't something through by tomorrow, we have to start over. Of course it wouldn't be too hard for the Senate to just repass the bill on Jan 3, and then send it straight to the more Democratic new House. I'm hoping that means a better bill, even if only slighly.

The interesting thing here is that Boehner of course has an interest in delaying any vote on a compromise until Jan. 3rd, when he's reelected as Speaker, because after he's voted in again as Speaker, it'll be impossible for a handful of disgruntled House Republicans to hold his job hostage.  But if delaying until Jan. 3rd means that the bill has to be re-voted on in the Senate, then there might be some further changes there that the House GOP doesn't like, which complicates things even more.

[Mr. Morden]

According to this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/02/us/politics/house-takes-on-fiscal-cliff.html?_r=0

the deadline is actually noon on Jan. 3rd.  That's when the new Congress gets sworn in.  In principle, the House could delay their vote on this until the morning of the 3rd, if it came to that.  Or they could pass an amended version and send it back to the Senate, if there's enough time for the Senate to act on it by noon Thursday.  If it isn't passed by then, then they start over.  Though as BRTD noted, starting over could well involved simply revoting on the same bill that the Senate already passed.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I understand the far-rights arguement against the Deal, they just don't want to raise any taxes. But what does the left not like about it? Just because instead of Obama pushing for $250000, he compromised and got  $400,000?

Because Obama gave up on literally anything apart from that miserable 4.6 point increase on the hyper-rich. All the cuts the GOP likes are made permanent, while everything the Democrats want to defend are only postponed by a couple months.

Democrats are morons.

such as?