PDA

View Full Version : The Obama Tax Compromise


Exotix
12-06-2010, 7:02pm
*Breaking*


Obama: Framework for tax cut deal in place

Democrats weigh temporary cut in Social Security taxes in order to strike compromise with GOP



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40536879/ns/politics-capitol_hill/




WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama ran into objections from congressional Democrats on Monday to an emerging year-end agreement with Republicans that extends income tax cuts to the wealthy as well as the middle class and grants additional relief to large estates.

Other elements of the possible agreement included a cut in workers' Social Security taxes and an extension of unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless.

Top Democrats traveled to the White House and left later without discussing the details of their discussions with Obama and Vice President Joe Biden.

Several officials said there was discontent over tax cut provisions that Republicans had demanded from the president, apparently successfully.


The White House meeting occurred after Obama returned to Washington from a trip to North Carolina, where he said he and Congress must "make sure we're coming up with a solution, even if it's not 100 percent what I want or 100 percent what the Republicans want."


(Read continues in Link)


Attempting to strike a deal

GOP, Dem leaders say compromise is possible







What's in the (tentative) tax cuts deal
'Framework for a bipartisan agreement' on tax cuts

First Read - 'Framework for a bipartisan agreement' on tax cuts (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/12/06/5600900-framework-for-a-bipartisan-agreement-on-tax-cuts-)



Obama pushes middle class tax cuts, investment.

First Read - Obama pushes middle class tax cuts, investment (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/12/06/5598365-obama-pushes-middle-class-tax-cuts-investment)



What does the apparent compromise on the Bush-era tax cuts tell us about Obama and the Democrats?

msnbc.com politics - What does the apparent compromise on the Bush-era tax cuts tell us about Obama and the Democrats? (http://politics.newsvine.com/_question/2010/12/06/5596004-what-does-the-apparent-compromise-on-the-bush-era-tax-cuts-tell-us-about-obama-and-the-democrats)





Video inside ~ Obama: Middle class held 'hostage' by Senate's tax vote


http://i51.tinypic.com/motg2.jpg





Good Luck in 2012 (R)'s ... you've just captured 0.0000001% of the American vote ... 315,000 Millionaires & Billionaires ....


:seeya:

Z06PDQ
12-06-2010, 7:15pm
this isn't why I helped to elect Obama. he & the Dems need to grow a set & stop this
"reaching across the aisle" bulls1t. does anyone remember how the Bush Tax Cuts were passed? PolitiFact | Bush tax cuts were passed with reconciliation's 50 votes (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/mar/04/alan-grayson/bush-tax-cuts-were-passed-reconciliations-50-votes/) the Dems should use reconciliation & run this right up their azzes! :beat:

Exotix
12-06-2010, 7:23pm
this isn't why I helped to elect Obama. he & the Dems need to grow a set & stop this
"reaching across the aisle" bulls1t. does anyone remember how the Bush Tax Cuts were passed? PolitiFact | Bush tax cuts were passed with reconciliation's 50 votes (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/mar/04/alan-grayson/bush-tax-cuts-were-passed-reconciliations-50-votes/) the Dems should use reconciliation & run this right up their azzes! :beat:

No prob ... all the 315,000 millionaires & billionaire have to do is create high-paying jobs with their tax cuts for 150,000,001 Americans to win in 2012 ... kind of like what *Read my Lips* did to win his election with the campaign strategy of *Reagavoodoo economics ain't mak'n it* ... :lolsmile:


:hurray:

Kneel 8250
12-06-2010, 8:08pm
I know I don't know a lot about American politics but don't the Democrats have a majority in both houses still???? So doesnt that make it that Democrats that are voting against your elected President??????????

Y2Kvert4me
12-06-2010, 8:09pm
this isn't why I helped to elect Obama.Because you support wildly disproportionate taxation practices?

Just because you THINK everyone richer than you deserves to get robbed, does not mean it's the role of the Gov't to carry out for you.

Hey, why not go steal a set of chrome 26" wheels off the next Escalade you see.
Use your exact same logic while removing them... "meh, they can afford to buy another set, so these deserve to be mine".

Funny how wrong that sounds when it's anything other than the fed gov't making the decision of who to take from.


:cheers:

Exotix
12-06-2010, 8:18pm
[/B]I know I don't know a lot about American politics but don't the Democrats have a majority in both houses still???? So doesnt that make it that Democrats that are voting against your elected President??????????

Supermajority
Supermajority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A supermajority or a qualified majority is a requirement for a proposal to gain a specified level or type of support which exceeds a simple majority (over 50%).

In some jurisdictions, for example, parliamentary procedure requires that any action that may alter the rights of the minority has a supermajority requirement (such as a two-thirds majority).

Changes to constitutions, especially those with entrenched clauses, commonly require supermajority support in a legislature.

A supermajority is absolute if the required percentage or fraction is based on the entire membership rather than on those present and voting.





Fractional supermajorities


Three-fifths majority

In the United States Senate, a three-fifths majority is required to bring out a vote of cloture, to end a filibuster. In Rhode Island, USA a three-fifths majority of the Rhode Island General Assembly is required to overturn a veto.



Two-thirds majority

A two-thirds majority is a potentially ambiguous supermajoritarian requirement in some elections, especially if minority rights can be changed (e.g., constitutional amendments).

There are two kinds of two-thirds majority: the simple or the absolute.

An unqualified or simple two-thirds majority requires that the number of votes in favour must be at least twice the number of votes against.
Abstaining votes or neutral votes are not considered in a simple two-thirds majority.

An absolute two-thirds majority requires that at least two-thirds of the entire membership of a body vote in favor.

In parliamentary procedure where a two-thirds majority is required, rather than speaking of a two-thirds majority the unambiguous phrases such as "two thirds of those present and voting", "two thirds of those present" (which has the effect of counting abstentions as votes against the proposal), or "two thirds of the entire membership" ("two thirds of those members duly elected and sworn" in American politics) are used.

The US Mason's Manual notes, "A deliberative body cannot by its own act or rule require a two-thirds vote to take any action where the constitution or controlling authority requires only a majority vote.

To require a two-thirds vote, for example, to take any action would be to give to any number more than one-third of the members the power to defeat the action and amount to a delegation of the powers of the body to a minority."



Majority of the entire membership ~ See also: Absolute majority.

In parliamentary procedure, another type of supermajority is a majority of the entire membership that is based on the total number of voting members of the society.
It is any number more than one half of the total number of members.

To illustrate, if the society has 35 members a majority of the entire membership is more than 17.5 votes (usually 18, unless there are fractional votes).
If only 20 members attend, a motion receiving 17 votes for adoption would not meet this requirement, even if the other 3 members chose not to vote, i.e. abstained.

Some parliamentary authorities, such as Robert's Rules of Order, use a majority of the entire member as an alternate method to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted or to adopt special rules of order.



Majority of the fixed membership

A majority of the fixed membership is a supermajority that is based on the total number of the established fixed membership of the deliberative assembly.
It is used only when a specific number of seats or memberships is established in the rules governing the organization, e.g. a board of seven members.

This majority of the fixed members is set at any number greater than one half of the total possible memberships or seats.

For example, on an 8-member board, the majority of the fixed membership is 5 or more.

Most private organizations do not use this standard.
The popular parliamentary manual, Robert's Rules of Order, does not require it for any action.
It is sometimes the standard set to adopt some or all actions in state and local government legislative bodies in the United States.

However, the United Nations Security Council does require a supermajority of the fixed membership on substantive matters (procedural matters require a simple majority of those present and voting).

According to Article 27 of the United Nations Charter, at least nine of the Security Council's 15 members (i.e., a three-fifths supermajority) must vote in favor of a draft resolution in order to achieve passage.

Since it is rare for any member of the Security Council to be absent at a meeting, and because it is virtually impossible to have a vacancy in the membership of the Council given that its members are member states rather than individuals, specifying the fixed membership has the effect of making abstentions count as votes against—absences are not normal.

This is very useful for the five permanent members of the Council (to wit, the United States, the Russian Federation, the People's Republic of China, the United Kingdom, and France), because the lack of a vote in favour from any one of them constitutes a veto which cannot be overridden.

Permanent members who do not wish a measure to be passed but are unwilling to be seen to block it against the wishes of the rest of the Council tend to abstain; abstentions by veto powers are generally seen by close observers of the UN as votes against.





Around the world

The European Union Council of Ministers uses a qualified majority system for its decision-making to balance the interests of small and large member states.




The United States Senate requires a supermajority of three-fifths to move to a vote through a cloture motion, which closes debate on a bill or nomination, thus ending a filibuster by a minority of members.


In current practice, the mere threat of a filibuster prevents passing almost any measure that has less than three-fifths agreement in the Senate—60 of the 100 Senators.


The United States Constitution requires a supermajority of two-thirds of both houses of Congress to propose a Congress-driven constitutional amendment; it also requires a three-quarters supermajority of state legislatures for final adoption of any constitutional amendment, a two-thirds supermajority of both houses of Congress to pass a bill over the president's veto, a majority of the fixed membership to elect a President and Vice President (of Electors in the Electoral College, or if the election should pass to the Congress to decide, a majority of State delegations in the House to elect the President, and a majority of Senators to elect the Vice President), and a two-thirds supermajority of the Senate to ratify a treaty.



The Indian Constitution requires a supermajority of two-thirds of members present and voting in both houses of Indian Parliament, subject to at least a simple majority of Parliament members voting, to amend the constitution.
The amendment needs approval by the President.
In addition, in matters affecting the states, a two-thirds majority of the affected states need to approve the amendment.

The Clarity Act in Canada gives the Parliament of Canada the power to decide if a referendum relating to provincial secession has obtained a "clear majority", implying that some sort of supermajority is needed. If it is determined it has not obtained a supermajority, the results of the referendum will be dismissed and the province cannot declare independence legally.

Referendums on the Republic of China on Taiwan require a majority of all registered voters (not merely those voting) for passage.

Peter Pan
12-06-2010, 8:45pm
I know I don't know a lot about American politics but don't the Democrats have a majority in both houses still???? So doesnt that make it that Democrats that are voting against your elected President??????????

Seems some of the woke up after the recent elections and the push back from the Healthcare Bill that was stuffed down our throats that the majority of Americans do not want. Those in the Senate want there jobs now more than walking the gaunlet for the President for more of what the mainstream America does not wanthttp://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c293/elsloan22/Holiday%20Gifs/jesusrea.gif

So anytime somethng goes against the Messiah we get a railing from his own supporters, just another promise broken by the big campaign of 08:D

ChasC5
12-06-2010, 9:13pm
Seems some of the woke up after the recent elections and the push back from the Healthcare Bill that was stuffed down our throats that the majority of Americans do not want. Those in the Senate want there jobs now more than walking the gaunlet for the President for more of what the mainstream America does not wanthttp://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c293/elsloan22/Holiday%20Gifs/jesusrea.gif

So anytime somethng goes against the Messiah we get a railing from his own supporters, just another promise broken by the big campaign of 08:D

What happened to your sig; Taxed Enough Already? :D

If you really are, go borrow some cash from your buddies; CHINA :lolsmile:

Z06PDQ
12-06-2010, 9:50pm
Because you support wildly disproportionate taxation practices?

Just because you THINK everyone richer than you deserves to get robbed, does not mean it's the role of the Gov't to carry out for you.

Hey, why not go steal a set of chrome 26" wheels off the next Escalade you see.
Use your exact same logic while removing them... "meh, they can afford to buy another set, so these deserve to be mine".

Funny how wrong that sounds when it's anything other than the fed gov't making the decision of who to take from.


:cheers:

oh cry me a ****ing river. the Bush Tax Cuts were designed to sunset because even the Pubes knew they are unsustainable. stick your tired,worn out commiephobe bull**** up your azz. :rofl:

Y2Kvert4me
12-06-2010, 10:05pm
oh cry me a ****ing river. the Bush Tax Cuts were designed to sunset because even the Pubes knew they are unsustainable. stick your tired,worn out commiephobe bull**** up your azz. :rofl:I didn't cry about anything...but wholly sh!t, you sure did. :lolsmile:

That's the best comeback to common sense you have? :confused5:


:cheers:

Z06PDQ
12-06-2010, 10:21pm
I didn't cry about anything...but wholly sh!t, you sure did. :lolsmile:

That's the best comeback to common sense you have? :confused5:


:cheers:
"common sense?" :lol:
man up & address what I said instead of repeating your tired old ****.. these tax cuts were never meant to be permanent. admit it.

Y2Kvert4me
12-06-2010, 10:32pm
"common sense?" :lol:
man up & address what I said instead of repeating your tired old ****.. these tax cuts were never meant to be permanent. admit it.Yes, common sense. YOUR taxes would have gone up too had those cuts not been extended.

You only wanted those cuts to apply to certain classes of income (including yours).

Now slowly re-read post #5 to help you understand why that's a bad idea.


:cheers:

ChasC5
12-06-2010, 10:45pm
Yes, common sense. YOUR taxes would have gone up too had those cuts not been extended.

You only wanted those cuts to apply to certain classes of income (including yours).

Now slowly re-read post #5 to help you understand why that's a bad idea.


:cheers:

What? :lolsmile:

Start speaking Chinese to communicate with daddy. :D because that's who funding it.

Y2Kvert4me
12-06-2010, 10:50pm
Start speaking Chinese to communicate with daddy. :D because that's who funding it.Yep, and :wtf: does that have to do with the topic of US taxation? :skep:

Z06PDQ
12-06-2010, 10:52pm
Yes, common sense. YOUR taxes would have gone up too had those cuts not been extended.

You only wanted those cuts to apply to certain classes of income (including yours).

Now slowly re-read post #5 to help you understand why that's a bad idea.


:cheers:

"common sense" is borrowing 700 billion from the Chinese to give to people who are already richer than nine feet up a bull's ass? :rofl: it is already a "tax cut for all Americans." the first 250k is tax free. :yesnod: what part of "below 250k/yr.=no tax increase" escapes you? :skep:

Y2Kvert4me
12-06-2010, 11:01pm
what part of "below 250k/yr.=no tax increase" escapes you? :skep:Uhh, you should probably go read what REALLY happened.

Hence the intended purpose of this entire thread. :rofl:

Broken Wind
12-07-2010, 7:06am
oh cry me a ****ing river. the Bush Tax Cuts were designed to sunset because even the Pubes knew they are unsustainable. stick your tired,worn out commiephobe bull**** up your azz. :rofl:

This is why you will never be taken seriously. Grow up, son.

ChasC5
12-07-2010, 8:19am
Yep, and :wtf: does that have to do with the topic of US taxation? :skep:

OMG ... you really don't know? :rofl:

ChasC5
12-07-2010, 8:23am
This is why you will never be taken seriously. Grow up, son.

The POTUS; George W. Bush, implemented Tax-Cuts in both 2001 and 2003 … Schedule buy the Bush Administration to END 2010!

It is now December 7th, 2010 … can you point us to the benefit of those decade long Tax-Cuts and what evidence do you have of continued Cuts will benefit YOU Specifically? :toetap:

Z06PDQ
12-07-2010, 10:09am
This is why you will never be taken seriously. Grow up, son.

another non response from another neocon led through the nose by the likes of the fat junkie pig Limbaugh & the manic depressive alcoholic Beck. Imagine that. :lol:

Peter Pan
12-07-2010, 11:27am
The POTUS; George W. Bush, implemented Tax-Cuts in both 2001 and 2003 … Schedule buy the Bush Administration to END 2010!

It is now December 7th, 2010 … can you point us to the benefit of those decade long Tax-Cuts and what evidence do you have of continued Cuts will benefit YOU Specifically? :toetap:

Those tax cuts got us out of a recession, how would it go raising taxes when the economy is treading water?

The problem is uncontrolled spending not not low taxes. The rich already pay 35% to the Feds this is enough. At the other end is one of my sons, makes 30k, wife and one kid, with the Bush tax law he pays zero Federal Taxes and in 2009 got back almost 2k more than he paid in. Seems the Robin Hood theory is working. Take 35% from the rich and low income is already getting a free ride, plus a handout. This was not in place under the last 2 dem presidents, makes Bush more of a lib than a pub. I believe all workers need to either pay some taxes or not get more than they pay in Federal Taxes. Makes it no incentive to make more and lose the free $$.


Oh I am taxed enough already:dance:

ChasC5
12-07-2010, 11:37am
Those tax cuts got us out of a recession,


:lolsmile: What happen to that surplus ... is all that money in your account? :D

DropTheTop
12-07-2010, 11:43am
I'd say judging from this page Tax Brackets (Federal Income Tax Rates) 2000 through 2009 and 2010 (http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm) the rich are being taxed quite enough already.

I think it would be much better to stop coddling adults and not ever allow unemployment benefits to extend past the already ridiculous extension. As soon as that stops, I guarantee some people will get to gettin' and find a job - ANY job.

I ponder about the money in taxes we are losing thanks to those that are working under the table and collecting benefits for two fecking years. Or those that could be working but choose to sponge instead? Or those that refuse to take a job for less than previous? For fun, let's throw a number out there, a very small percentage of people. Say 500,000.

Now let's take this for example:

If the average weekly benefit is ~ $300, then people are living off ~ $16,000/yr. If only a half million people (very small percentage of the unemployed) would just accept minimum wage jobs, they'd make the same money and add a Billion dollars into federal taxes. Not to mention save them 8 Billion dollars in payouts. So, a half million people could save us 8 Billion and generate 1 Billion. For the Gov to make up that 9 Billion dollars, you'd need 260,500 Millionaires, or 250 Billionaires to be returned to 2002 tax rate. Why should those rich be taxed even more when 500,000 people could step up to the plate and take the burden off themselves as well as us?

And please, don't come back with a bunch of BS about who I must listen to on the radio / TV. All that thought and math came from my very own mind and calculator.

Peter Pan
12-07-2010, 12:41pm
:lolsmile: What happen to that surplus ... is all that money in your account? :D

Smart Azz, congress is spending to much, stop the reckless spending and we can go back to the black. Seems to me both parties need to stop the spending and only spend what the current tax law takes in as I am Taxed Enough Already:cheers:

ChasC5
12-07-2010, 1:36pm
Smart Azz, congress is spending to much, stop the reckless spending and we can go back to the black. Seems to me both parties need to stop the spending and only spend what the current tax law takes in as I am Taxed Enough Already:cheers:

You mean the decision to spend money without paying for it? :D

Z06PDQ
12-07-2010, 1:37pm
Midwest Voices
kansascity.com

Barb Shelly

Here’s my small crusade: Could we stop talking about “ending the Bush tax cuts for people earning more than $250,000 a year?”

That leaves the impression that you would keep your tax cuts if you make $250,000 or less, but give them up entirely if you would make, say, $275,000.

In reality, based on proposals by President Obama and some Congressional Democrats, everyone would retain the tax cuts on income up to $250,000. The increase would come on income earned over that threshold. So in the scenario above, the couple earning $275,000 a year would see an income tax increase only on $25,000.

So the better way to frame the debate is “ending the Bush tax cuts on household income above $250,000 a year.”
:cheers:

Peter Pan
12-07-2010, 3:55pm
You mean the decision to spend money without paying for it? :D

Both parties are spending to much, our Govt needs to spend less than the current tax, our Govt is out of control and even with the biggest tax increase in history, our Govt still has us in a defict, raising taxes is not the answer, cutting spending is.

Midwest Voices
kansascity.com

Barb Shelly

Here’s my small crusade: Could we stop talking about “ending the Bush tax cuts for people earning more than $250,000 a year?”

That leaves the impression that you would keep your tax cuts if you make $250,000 or less, but give them up entirely if you would make, say, $275,000.

In reality, based on proposals by President Obama and some Congressional Democrats, everyone would retain the tax cuts on income up to $250,000. The increase would come on income earned over that threshold. So in the scenario above, the couple earning $275,000 a year would see an income tax increase only on $25,000.

So the better way to frame the debate is “ending the Bush tax cuts on household income above $250,000 a year.”
:cheers:

No, those making over $250 a year are already paying lets see 35%, that is enough and my son with a wife and child making 30k a year gets an annual stimilus free $$, Robin Hood is already in force with the current tax law for the low income and 35% is enough to send into the Federal Govt.

I am Taxed Enough Already

ChasC5
12-07-2010, 7:18pm
Both parties are spending to much, our Govt needs to spend less than the current tax, our Govt is out of control and even with the biggest tax increase in history, our Govt still has us in a defict, raising taxes is not the answer, cutting spending is.



No, those making over $250 a year are already paying lets see 35%, that is enough and my son with a wife and child making 30k a year gets an annual stimilus free $$, Robin Hood is already in force with the current tax law for the low income and 35% is enough to send into the Federal Govt.

I am Taxed Enough Already

So what happened today? :toetap:

Peter Pan
12-08-2010, 12:47am
So what happened today? :toetap:

The president broke another promise from the 08 campaign, I will raise taxes on the rich:D

ChasC5
12-08-2010, 8:07am
The president broke another promise from the 08 campaign, I will raise taxes on the rich:D

Apparently your understanding of yesterday’s agreement is vastly different from The GOP, who are happy and The Democrats who are pissed-off.

The last I checked, the Rich is still getting their Physically Responsible, China Funded Tax-Break.

Maybe you should check with Fox-News. :D

leec4ce
12-08-2010, 8:10am
"common sense" is borrowing 700 billion from the Chinese to give to people who are already richer than nine feet up a bull's ass? :rofl: it is already a "tax cut for all Americans." the first 250k is tax free. :yesnod: what part of "below 250k/yr.=no tax increase" escapes you? :skep:

Is this not the same Bank of China that is paying for Stimulus bill, Heath Care and unemployment extensions?

ChasC5
12-08-2010, 8:33am
Is this not the same Bank of China that is paying for Stimulus bill, Heath Care and unemployment extensions?

Yes it is; and if you don’t believe me, you’ll find plenty pictures of United States Governors, with big huge smiles standing behind oversized checks. :D

leec4ce
12-08-2010, 8:45am
oh cry me a ****ing river. the Bush Tax Cuts were designed to sunset because even the Pubes knew they are unsustainable. stick your tired,worn out commiephobe bull**** up your azz. :rofl:

While your :cry:ing your river pull your head out of your :monkeybutt: and find out why the Senate used the Sunset Amendment. A litttle hint: The DemaDorks knew it was more unsustainable SPENDING.

Exotix
12-08-2010, 8:45am
Yes it is; and if you don’t believe me, you’ll find plenty pictures of United States Governors, with big huge smiles standing behind oversized checks. :D

So much to say about this one ... eventually the (neo)-conservative ones will tell you they were either blackmailed or forced to take it and it's Obama/Dem/Libs fault ... sad.

leec4ce
12-08-2010, 8:49am
Yes it is; and if you don’t believe me, you’ll find plenty pictures of United States Governors, with big huge smiles standing behind oversized checks. :D

No arguement. Government to Big to fail. :cheers:

ChasC5
12-08-2010, 8:53am
No arguement. Government to Big to fail. :cheers:

When it comes to being Physically Responsible; Our Government failed us yesterday!

If the President needed to convey the Biggest Bang for the Buck decision, then he failed, and so did all the Democrats and Republicans political elected.

Sad ...

Exotix
12-08-2010, 8:58am
When it comes to being Physically Responsible; Our Government failed us yesterday!

If the President needed to convey the Biggest Bang for the Buck decision, then he failed, and so did all the Democrats and Republicans political elected.

Sad ...

Depends on how you look at it ...

The Dems will look good bashing the entire conundrum ... Obama will win again in 2012 since Boehner has just made the Washington D.C. Social list so he has better things to do now than actually going through with the neocon Pledge to America ... (what the hell anyway, the (R)'s really don't have anybody anyway as GOP POTUS candidacy so whadda they have to lose ?)

ChasC5
12-08-2010, 9:04am
Depends on how you look at it ...

The Dems will look good bashing the entire conundrum ... Obama will win again in 2012 since Boehner has just made the Washington D.C. Social list so he has better things to do now than actually going through with the neocon Pledge to America ... (what the hell anyway, the (R)'s really don't have anybody anyway as GOP POTUS candidacy so whadda they have to lose ?)

Extending help (Unemployment) for Americans is simply being American. If we don’t care about American’s, who will, and additionally, if the President found a way to pay for it, even better?

So, how will Tax-Cuts for the Rich be paid for?

Exotix
12-08-2010, 9:13am
So, how will Tax-Cuts for the Rich be paid for?

They don't need to be ... the entire concept of (R) Tax Cuts is still Nixon to Bush/Cheney *Deficits Don't Matter* ...

As long as the Oil Cartels and China continue to buy our debt and as long as we outsource to them ... we're in good shape ...

In this regard, what doesn't make sense is the Tea Party abolishing the govt. altogether ...

Tinkerbell in Texas
12-08-2010, 9:13am
When it comes to being Physically Responsible; Our Government failed us yesterday!

If the President needed to convey the Biggest Bang for the Buck decision, then he failed, and so did all the Democrats and Republicans political elected.

Sad ...

um.....you DO mean FISCALLY responsible, don't you???????????????

ChasC5
12-08-2010, 9:16am
They don't need to be ... the entire concept of (R) Tax Cuts is still Nixon to Bush/Cheney *Deficits Don't Matter* ...

As long as the Oil Cartels and China continue to buy our debt and as long as we outsource to them ... we're in good shape ...

In this regard, what doesn't make sense is the Tea Party abolishing the govt. altogether ...

Looks to me like the Tea Party needs Mama Govenment to fund their spening and Wars. :skep:

Unless they think the Top 2% are going to give them some their Tax-Cut money. :)

Let's see what really happens. :toetap:

Tinkerbell in Texas
12-08-2010, 9:19am
Extending help (Unemployment) for Americans is simply being American. If we don’t care about American’s, who will, and additionally, if the President found a way to pay for it, even better?

So, how will Tax-Cuts for the Rich be paid for?

extending unemployment benefits an additional 13 months for a grand total of nearly 3 years is "fiscally irresponsible".

Exotix
12-08-2010, 9:20am
Looks to me like the Tea Party needs Mama Govenment to fund their spening and Wars. :skep:

Unless they think the Top 2% are going to give them some their Tax-Cut money. :)

Let's see what really happens. :toetap:

Haven't heard a damn thing from the Tea Party since the last elections ... can one of you Tea Baggers help me out with what's going on with you ?

http://i51.tinypic.com/300wifc.gif

Exotix
12-08-2010, 9:23am
extending unemployment benefits an additional 13 months for a grand total of nearly 3 years is "fiscally irresponsible".

It's not ... we just got 2 deficit wammys ... it's posture as we go into 2012 where (R)'s McConnell, Boehner, Cantor and Pence have 2 years to *Take America Back* ... starting with job creation from this extended Tax Cut for the rich in terms of *voodoo economics* ...

ChasC5
12-08-2010, 9:27am
extending unemployment benefits an additional 13 months for a grand total of nearly 3 years is "fiscally irresponsible".

Ok agreed ... then The (R) should come out and say "Cut them off"
The (D) have already said we should extend it.

Now, what about spending 3x that for the Top 2%

Take a stance and stand by it.

:cheers:

Tinkerbell in Texas
12-08-2010, 9:29am
It's not ... we just got 2 deficit wammys ... it's posture as we go into 2012 where (R)'s McConnell, Boehner, Cantor and Pence have 2 years to *Take America Back* ... starting with job creation from this extended Tax Cut for the rich in terms of *voodoo economics* ...

it is. 3 years of unemployment is as irresponsible as it gets. It enables people to STAY on unemployment for as long as possible without having to do anything for it.

ChasC5
12-08-2010, 9:31am
it is. 3 years of unemployment is as irresponsible as it gets. It enables people to STAY on unemployment for as long as possible without having to do anything for it.

and 10 Years of Tax-Cuts is exactly what ... Free? :toetap:

Take a stance ... and stick with it. :cheers:

Tinkerbell in Texas
12-08-2010, 9:33am
Ok agreed ... then The (R) should come out and say "Cut them off"
The (D) have already said we should extend it.

Now, what about spending 3x that for the Top 2%

Take a stance and stand by it.

:cheers:

agreed, the "(R)'s" as you call them should have said "NO MORE".

So let me get this straight.......the tax cuts we're talking about are going to be EXTENDED.......meaning that there will be no additional monies stolen...I mean collected.
So if they weren't being collected they shouldn't now be missed!
Perhaps if Obama and posse hadn't run up the deficit they wouldn't be having this push back. :thumbs:

Exotix
12-08-2010, 9:33am
it is. 3 years of unemployment is as irresponsible as it gets. It enables people to STAY on unemployment for as long as possible without having to do anything for it.

This is merely (R)/(neo)-conservative/Tea Bag insHannity via Faux/Beckerhead and Rushbo that is the *new right* since Bush collapsed your Party ...

Tinkerbell in Texas
12-08-2010, 9:35am
and 10 Years of Tax-Cuts is exactly what ... Free? :toetap:

Take a stance ... and stick with it. :cheers:

Chas, what is a tax?? it's TAKING money from the person who earns it.
A tax cut is NOT taking as much of their money as previously.

Tinkerbell in Texas
12-08-2010, 9:36am
This is merely (R)/(neo)-conservative/Tea Bag insHannity via Faux/Beckerhead and Rushbo that is the *new right* since Bush collapsed your Party ...

been drinking already this morning???

I don't watch Hannity, Beck or Rush..........but good try.

ChasC5
12-08-2010, 9:39am
agreed, the "(R)'s" as you call them should have said "NO MORE".

So let me get this straight.......the tax cuts we're talking about are going to be EXTENDED.......meaning that there will be no additional monies stolen...I mean collected.
So if they weren't being collected they shouldn't now be missed!
Perhaps if Obama and posse hadn't run up the deficit they wouldn't be having this push back. :thumbs:

Wrong; the rate of spending didn’t change, to cover the lack of revenue, in fact it increased … starting back in 2001, and again in 2003!

This isn’t long division, its simple addition and subtraction.

The previous Administration didn’t cover its own spend and thus we’re paying for it … Big Time.

The Physical Responsible hawks didn’t speak up in 2001 and 2003 and not once during the two Wars.


:cheers:

Tinkerbell in Texas
12-08-2010, 9:48am
Wrong; the rate of spending didn’t change, to cover the lack of revenue, in fact it increased … starting back in 2001, and again in 2003!

This isn’t long division, its simple addition and subtraction.

The previous Administration didn’t cover its own spend and thus we’re paying for it … Big Time.

The Physical Responsible hawks didn’t speak up in 2001 and 2003 and not once during the two Wars.


:cheers:


so you're going to stick with the story that Obama hasn't spent any more than any other president??? SERIOUSLY??????

omg, it's FISCAL not physical. Geez!!! (and don't try and say that's a typo).

Peter Pan
12-08-2010, 9:59am
so you're going to stick with the story that Obama hasn't spent any more than any other president??? SERIOUSLY??????

omg, it's FISCAL not physical. Geez!!! (and don't try and say that's a typo).

Let's see 3 trillion in new deficts in 2 years, Bush did not do that in 8 years, and the dems controlled congress for the last 2 years when he was in office and the largest deficts were then, seems both parties like to spend more than we tax, but the libs just put the reps in the back of the bus when it comes to uncontrolled spending, time for the country to only spend what we take in.

I am taxed enough alreadyhttp://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c293/elsloan22/Holiday%20Gifs/jesusrea.gif

Exotix
12-08-2010, 10:02am
I see you still have nothing but juvenille insults to retort with.

One day you might be able to have an intelligent conversation on the facts.

But we all know you are a lair when you say you are willing to do that. (http://www.thevettebarn.com/forums/politics-religion-controversy/3999-you-willing-debate-facts.html#post48031)

Believe me dude ... you'll still be been much better off running on a Fred Thompson ticket than the McKook invention ... Palin.


http://i54.tinypic.com/29dy5xf.jpg

Exotix
12-08-2010, 10:10am
Please someone tell me how the PotUS can say the Republicans "held hostage" unemployment benefits when the current lame duck session of the House and Senate still have the Democrats with their super majorities? :skep: If the Democrats REALLY wanted to push their crap through (ie. Obamacare) the could do it and not need any Republican votes.

This statement goes to the Beckerhead insHannity I was just taking about ... proved not only that supermajority was explained to you I believe earlier in this thread ... but also proves you have nowhere to go but believe any same'o Beckerhead/insHannity you've long subscribed too ... probably because it's the only solace and comfort you have since Rumsfeld declared that WMD's were somewhere North, South, East and West of Baghdad ...

Sad.

ChasC5
12-08-2010, 10:12am
so you're going to stick with the story that Obama hasn't spent any more than any other president??? SERIOUSLY??????

omg, it's FISCAL not physical. Geez!!! (and don't try and say that's a typo).

I personally don't give a Fck how it's spelled, because either way no one is doing it.

Out of all the POTUS, Obama had to spend the money. Or did you forget already?

Stop drinking the Koolaid.

Peter Pan
12-08-2010, 10:23am
This statement goes to the Beckerhead insHannity I was just taking about ... proved not only that supermajority was explained to you I believe earlier in this thread ... but also proves you have nowhere to go but believe any same'o Beckerhead/insHannity you've long subscribed too ... probably because it's the only solace and comfort you have since Rumsfeld declared that WMD's were somewhere North, South, East and West of Baghdad ...

Sad.

You are wrong here, a super majority means you can dictate as Obama, the Senate and House has done the last two years, there had been no working with the other side at all until after this Nov election, the Reps got to ride in the back of the bus. Now with Obama not going to be able to dictate starting in Nov is already on the campagin trail, hostage taking is for the enemy not for the other political party, he is waging war against half of America with those statements. I resent my ideals being taken into context of war or a criminal as a hostage taker. After all I earn my $$ not you, not someone else or our elected officals. The current tax law takes more than its fair share, except for the poor who at the current levels pay zero federal taxes, seems the lower end does nothing to pay for itself and just takes from others freely and wants more.

I see you have served in the military and know without a doubt the Iraq did not have WMDs, I have no knowledge either way upon leaving the military, I do have knowledge what Iraq had while on active duty it was my area to report on, but you are the expert here, not congress or the federal govt that thought he had them. You seem to forgot as do most Americans the truck convoys going from Iraq to Syria before the start of the conflict, those are public, but then open sources are wrong to.

I am Taxed Enough Already:yesnod:

Exotix
12-08-2010, 10:27am
You are wrong here, a super majority means you can dictate as Obama, the Senate and House has done the last two years, there had been no working with the other side at all until after this Nov election, the Reps got to ride in the back of the bus. Now with Obama not going to be able to dictate starting in Nov is already on the campagin trail, hostage taking is for the enemy not for the other political party, he is waging war against half of America with those statements. I resent my ideals being taken into context of war or a criminal as a hostage taker. After all I earn my $$ not you, not someone else or our elected officals. The current tax law takes more than its fair share, except for the poor who at the current levels pay zero federal taxes, seems the lower end does nothing to pay for itself and just takes from others freely and wants more.

I see you have served in the military and know without a doubt the Iraq did not have WMDs, I have no knowledge either way upon leaving the military, I do have knowledge what Iraq had while on active duty it was my area to report on, but you are the expert here, not congress or the federal govt that thought he had them. You seem to forgot as do most Americans the truck convoys going from Iraq to Syria before the start of the conflict, those are public, but then open sources are wrong to.

I am Taxed Enough Already ... :yesnod:


Dude, when did you have the epiphany that you were taxed enough already ?

Lemme guess, when Haliburton had to disguise itself as KBR so it could continue it's cost-plus billing of the U.S. Treasury for RPG Net shrouds for the U.S. Embassy in Iraq that Bush built for you with your taxes ...

Tinkerbell in Texas
12-08-2010, 10:27am
I personally don't give a Fck how it's spelled, because either way no one is doing it.

Out of all the POTUS, Obama had to spend the money. Or did you forget already?

Stop drinking the Koolaid.

Obama didn't HAVE to spend anything!!!! Perhaps YOU should stop drinking the koolaid!!

Peter Pan
12-08-2010, 10:28am
I personally don't give a Fck how it's spelled, because either way no one is doing it.

Out of all the POTUS, Obama had to spend the money. Or did you forget already?

Stop drinking the Koolaid.

He did not have to do the Stimilus as the shovel ready jobs would keep unemployment under 8% seems we are at a record now above 9% and with the current compromise those on the rolls will not have to seek a job for another 13 months. So the 800 billion stimilus has done what, see unemployement rise to depression like levels and will stay this way for longer with the handouts. Uncontrolled spending did not have to happen, time for both sides to only spend what is taken in, the current tax law takes enough, time to tighten the belt like small business have had to.

I am taxed enough already:yesnod:

Peter Pan
12-08-2010, 10:31am
Dude, when did you have the epiphany that you were taxed enough already ?

Lemme guess, when Haliburton had to disguise itself as KBR so it could do it's cost-plus billing of the U.S. Treasury for RPG Net shrouds for the U.S. Embassy in Iraq that Bush built for you with your taxes ...

When? As an American who pays his taxes and sees zero in return I can state I am TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY. WTF is your above statement other than more unrational crap, how about real congress issues with Freddie, Fannie and Rangel the real Tax Cheat:yesnod:

ChasC5
12-08-2010, 10:56am
When? As an American who pays his taxes and sees zero in return I can state I am TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY. WTF is your above statement other than more unrational crap, how about real congress issues with Freddie, Fannie and Rangel the real Tax Cheat:yesnod:

If you see zero Value o n your Tax Dollars, then you to get involved with your Community and stop beotching about not getting Value.

Got off the Corvette Forum, and go get some Value.


I get Value for my Tax dollars, especally local, because I'm not sitting on my Azz expecting Value to come to me automaticly.

ChasC5
12-08-2010, 11:21am
But then what will he drink out on the golf course w/all his multi-cultural buddies? :drunk:

We all share Logins to the Corvette Forum/PR&C; so you can ask us yourself.

Half the time you don’t even know you’re typing to me.

It’s the gift that keeps on giving, making fools out of fools. :lolsmile:

ChasC5
12-08-2010, 11:23am
WTH does being involved in the local community have to do with the government taking money from my paycheck.

Oh wait, it's typical Chas misdirection and patting himself on the back for being SOOO involved in the commuinity. I'll wait to hear more about how you do so much in your next post. :rolleyes:


How about the gov't get out of my pocket and let me chose whom to support with MY (read that again it's MY) money.




I'd get more "value" out of MY money by giving to charities who can make it stretch further than nanny gov't has ever dreamed of doing.

You again make zero sense Chas.




Should we give the Taliban your address the next time they want exercise terrorist activities?

You don’t need any help, so I’m sure you got covered all by yourself … partner.

:cheers:

Exotix
12-08-2010, 11:24am
We all share Logins to the Corvette Forum/PR&C; so you can ask us yourself.

Half the time you don’t even know you’re typing to me.

It’s the gift that keeps on giving, making fools out of fools. :lolsmile:

Should we give the Taliban your address the next time they want exercise terrorist activities?

You don’t need any help, so I’m sure you got covered all by yourself … partner.

:cheers:

LO jus'damn L ...

Tinkerbell in Texas
12-08-2010, 11:37am
We all share Logins to the Corvette Forum/PR&C; so you can ask us yourself.

Half the time you don’t even know you’re typing to me.

It’s the gift that keeps on giving, making fools out of fools. :lolsmile:

quoted. I'm sure they will be very interested in this. :thumbs:

ChasC5
12-08-2010, 11:57am
quoted. I'm sure they will be very interested in this. :thumbs:

Their interest is of little concern to me … :lolsmile:

BTW; there’s a really cool building my client is in, that has no windows for the first dozen floors, it has such wonderful Telecom toys in it … any idea what they are? :D

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b137/chasc5/10SouthCanal-001.jpg

Exotix
12-08-2010, 12:03pm
Their interest is of little concern to me … :lolsmile:

BTW; there’s a really cool building my client is in, that has no windows for the first dozen floors, it has such wonderful Telecom toys in it … any idea what they are? :D

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b137/chasc5/10SouthCanal-001.jpg

She's gonna tell on you anyway ... goes to that Tinkerbell Jekyl & Hyde we were discussing ...

http://i51.tinypic.com/300wifc.jpg

ChasC5
12-08-2010, 12:08pm
She's gonna tell on you anyway ... goes to that Tinkerbell Jekyl & Hyde we were discussing ...

http://i51.tinypic.com/300wifc.jpg

I had a little niece who was exactly the same way … but she was 5 and that behavior was expected. :yesnod:

Tinkerbell in Texas
12-08-2010, 12:10pm
Their interest is of little concern to me … :lolsmile:

BTW; there’s a really cool building my client is in, that has no windows for the first dozen floors, it has such wonderful Telecom toys in it … any idea what they are? :D

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b137/chasc5/10SouthCanal-001.jpg

Cool!!! I'm sure you won't mind if I go let them know that you and your friends are abusing the TOS there. :thumbs:

Exotix
12-08-2010, 12:27pm
Cool!!! I'm sure you won't mind if I go let them know that you and your friends are abusing the TOS there. :thumbs:

I've known about this for some time now ... believe me ... even I can't find who he is ... even I have *pen-names* over there since 2004 and at least half of them have been banned ... however, after a CF member from the business community of CF came over to CFPR&C and stated that he just reported the CFPR&C mods to the FBI for allowing the posting of death threats against a sitting POTUS ... well, I couldn't just leave and de-activate my account ... so I led dumbazz grumpy by the end of his nose and he fell for my 10th and last ban (hijacking my own thread) that's a perma-ban forum rule ...

Good luck in prison wackos ... :seeya:

ChasC5
12-08-2010, 12:36pm
Irony doth make another appearance.

And it's doubled since the reply was to a member who slings juvenile insults when he has no intelligent responses (which is most of the time).

I do find it amusing how you and Exotix are getting your uninformed butts handed to you and can only respond with this garbage.

Shows how weak your arguments really are.

Seems your liberal circle jerk, echo chamber days of the PRC section here aren't as fun anymore. :lol:

BTW, this Thread is about the Obama Tax Compromise ... remember.

Stay focused grasshopper :skep:

Tinkerbell in Texas
12-08-2010, 12:44pm
BTW, this Thread is about the Obama Tax Compromise ... remember.

Stay focused grasshopper :skep:

why should we when the OP and his minions don't???? :beat:

Exotix
12-08-2010, 12:50pm
why should we when the OP and his minions don't???? :beat:

The exotix never minds when his threads go off track ... people don't conduct themselves as this *sterile* in this regard in real life ... it'll find it's way back and usually with a simple reminder as Chas has done ...

... unless of course you're a CFPR&C lib where the sport is to try to get a word in, in-between neocon mental flame posts every single thread 24/7/365 since its inception over a decade ago ...


:cheers:

Tinkerbell in Texas
12-08-2010, 12:58pm
The exotix never minds when his threads go off track ... people don't conduct themselves as this *sterile* in this regard in real life ... it'll find it's way back and usually with a simple reminder as Chas has done ...

... unless of course you're a CFPR&C lib where the sport is to try to get a word in, in-between neocon mental flame posts every single thread 24/7/365 since its inception over a decade ago ...


:cheers:

awww, can't get a post in edgewise????? life is tough!!! :rofl:

ChasC5
12-08-2010, 1:24pm
Seems your liberal circle jerk, echo chamber days of the PRC section here aren't as fun anymore. :lol:

My only regret this that I can’t get one of those Cool CF 10 Year Member Yellow badges. :beer:

I was there before SeaFive; but that’s ok, I’ve got something really special for him and The Grumpster. :yesnod:

Joecooool
12-08-2010, 2:53pm
Lost a lot of respect for Obama this week. I fail to understand how increasing federal spending with the unemployment extensions while decreasing tax revenue with the tax cuts extended is whats best for the country.

A better compromise would have been extending the tax cuts for those making under $250,000 ONLY and doing nothing with the unemployment benefits.

I'm really disappointed with the inheritance tax compromise.

ChasC5
12-08-2010, 2:59pm
Lost a lot of respect for Obama this week. I fail to understand how increasing federal spending with the unemployment extensions while decreasing tax revenue with the tax cuts extended is whats best for the country.

A better compromise would have been extending the tax cuts for those making under $250,000 ONLY and doing nothing with the unemployment benefits.

I'm really disappointed with the inheritance tax compromise.

:yesnod:

Joecooool
12-08-2010, 3:00pm
No prob ... all the 315,000 millionaires & billionaire have to do is create high-paying jobs with their tax cuts for 150,000,001 Americans to win in 2012 ... kind of like what *Read my Lips* did to win his election with the campaign strategy of *Reagavoodoo economics ain't mak'n it* ... :lolsmile:


:hurray:Whats often lost in the discussion is the fact that the tax cuts have been in place for ten years.

Where are all the jobs these millionaires have created?

Joecooool
12-08-2010, 3:05pm
Those tax cuts got us out of a recession..:

This is not true. Deficit spending got us out of Bush's recession.

Joecooool
12-08-2010, 3:11pm
I'd say judging from this page Tax Brackets (Federal Income Tax Rates) 2000 through 2009 and 2010 (http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm) the rich are being taxed quite enough already.

I think it would be much better to stop coddling adults and not ever allow unemployment benefits to extend past the already ridiculous extension. As soon as that stops, I guarantee some people will get to gettin' and find a job - ANY job.

I ponder about the money in taxes we are losing thanks to those that are working under the table and collecting benefits for two fecking years. Or those that could be working but choose to sponge instead? Or those that refuse to take a job for less than previous? For fun, let's throw a number out there, a very small percentage of people. Say 500,000.

Now let's take this for example:

If the average weekly benefit is ~ $300, then people are living off ~ $16,000/yr. If only a half million people (very small percentage of the unemployed) would just accept minimum wage jobs, they'd make the same money and add a Billion dollars into federal taxes. Not to mention save them 8 Billion dollars in payouts. So, a half million people could save us 8 Billion and generate 1 Billion. For the Gov to make up that 9 Billion dollars, you'd need 260,500 Millionaires, or 250 Billionaires to be returned to 2002 tax rate. Why should those rich be taxed even more when 500,000 people could step up to the plate and take the burden off themselves as well as us?

And please, don't come back with a bunch of BS about who I must listen to on the radio / TV. All that thought and math came from my very own mind and calculator.This information is misleading.

The vast majority of wealthy people in this country derive their income from long term capital gains. That is taxed as a maximum of 15% regardless of total income.

Warren Buffet issued a challenge a few years ago to the Forbes 400 to prove that anyone on that list paid more taxes by a percentage of total income than their secretary did. He even offered a million dollars to anyone who could show they do.

No one did.

Read this - Me and My Secretary - Forbes.com (http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/1126/042b.html)

ChasC5
12-08-2010, 3:16pm
This is not true. Deficit spending got us out of Bush's recession.

Exactly ... :cheers:

Just ask a GM worker :yesnod:

Joecooool
12-08-2010, 3:18pm
extending unemployment benefits an additional 13 months for a grand total of nearly 3 years is "fiscally irresponsible".You do not understand the unemployment legislation.

The proposed compromise would do no such thing. It would preserve the 99 weeks by reauthorizing Emergency Unemployment Compensation and Extended Benefits programs, which together provide up to 73 weeks of benefits beyond the standard 26 funded by states.

Proposals to give the long-term unemployed in hardest-hit states an additional 20 weeks of benefits do exist, but those plans are going nowhere.

Joecooool
12-08-2010, 3:26pm
quoted. I'm sure they will be very interested in this. :thumbs:I got a kick out of Grumpy telling me he got three or four PM's a week from you asking that I be banned.

You really are a two faced chickensh*t. :cheers:

ChasC5
12-08-2010, 3:27pm
You do not understand the unemployment legislation.

The proposed compromise would do no such thing. It would preserve the 99 weeks by reauthorizing Emergency Unemployment Compensation and Extended Benefits programs, which together provide up to 73 weeks of benefits beyond the standard 26 funded by states.

Proposals to give the long-term unemployed in hardest-hit states an additional 20 weeks of benefits do exist, but those plans are going nowhere.

Most of the morons over at the CF/PR&C adamantly believe Unemployment Benefits = Welfare

Is the concept of Employees and Employers paying into a Insurance System lost among the intellectually challenged?

ChasC5
12-08-2010, 3:53pm
Well since you Dems still have control of the House and Senate, why did the anointed one cave? They could have rammed more of their crap down the throat of Americans if they really wanted it. :yesnod:

I think he explained that, because real Americans are affected … say the majority of them.

You know, the Americans you call deadbeats. :leaving:

ChasC5
12-08-2010, 4:00pm
Two words: cop out.
You say a majority of them, back up your assertion with some unbiased data.


Quote me where I said such a thing or be prepared to wear the label of liar. :toetap:

Stop puffing your chest out and demanding statistical data, this ain’t the Corvette Forum PR&C. :toetap:

You’ll get what I give you, when I give it to you, and like it.:lolsmile:

Exotix
12-08-2010, 4:17pm
Stop puffing your chest out and demanding statistical data, this ain’t the Corvette Forum PR&C. :toetap:

You’ll get what I give you, when I give it to you, and like it.:lolsmile:

Wouldn't surprise me that he was finally banned or to his credit, no longer feels the need to participate over there given the 15 wackos who post there 24/7 who put everyone in danger with their right-wing extremeist froth ....

Hopefully he won't bring that kind of **** over here ...

:cheers:

Exotix
12-08-2010, 4:28pm
Lost a lot of respect for Obama this week. I fail to understand how increasing federal spending with the unemployment extensions while decreasing tax revenue with the tax cuts extended is whats best for the country.

A better compromise would have been extending the tax cuts for those making under $250,000 ONLY and doing nothing with the unemployment benefits.

I'm really disappointed with the inheritance tax compromise.

I didn't ... not really ... even I believe that Obama believes that the (R)'s will come to their senses that America's future is at stake ... that even though the neocons took as down the path of destruction that there's still time to jump on board without further retribution ... you might even say that's the *Junior Senator* in him ...

Yes a fantasy land ... but when Obama manned-up and called the (R)'s hostage-taking (jihadist) terrorists ... well, that tells me that *2nd Amendment Remedies* are also a Lib prerogative ...

That got my mojo rise'n ...


:winky:

Exotix
12-08-2010, 4:46pm
If you don't know why I was banned, you're just showing your galactic ignorance. Try using your brain and doing some research. I know it's a new concept you instead of parroting the liberal BS you read every day.




Believe me ... the only time I ever saw a major-playing right-wing extremist of your bent get banned on CFPR&C ... was SeaFive ... and that was for 3 days starting on Friday because SeaFive has the kids on the weekend so doesn't post ...

In all honesty, he was banned for following me around the forum saying *babble* after my posts ... he only made the mistake of doing it at that time in the morning when grumpy is waking up and is PMS'd ...

Hope you have a better story than that one ...


http://i51.tinypic.com/300wifc.jpg

Exotix
12-08-2010, 4:54pm
And it's a total garbage statement. But then again, any one with common sense (ie. not you) would know that statement was total garbage.

If the Dems REALLY wanted to just extend the tax relief to anyone under $250K, they could have rammed a bill through just like they did the crap Obamacare bill.

But since you have no intelligent rebuttal for that, the rest of us will just sit back and watch you ramble off some diatribe of nonsense in response.

No? Yes ?
Turn on C-Span and watch the (R)'s vote no enmasse for a one-time $250 payment to Social Security Recipients in the flavor of a COLA ...

Exotix
12-08-2010, 4:59pm
Considering *babble* is an accurate statement to the drivel you post it surprised me Seafive was banned.

AFAIR I wasn't banned from something in PRC but since it's been so long since I was over there I might be mistaken.

That said, if you don't know why I was banned then, like I said, do your research. :yesnod:

I even remember the first time I was banned ... because of you.

I simply stated that you weren't bent-outa-shape enough yet so I didn't feel the need to deal with you ... but grumpy said he was ... BAN !

Everyone remembers their first time ...


http://i51.tinypic.com/300wifc.jpg

Tinkerbell in Texas
12-08-2010, 5:30pm
I got a kick out of Grumpy telling me he got three or four PM's a week from you asking that I be banned.

You really are a two faced chickensh*t. :cheers:

gee that's funny because that wouldn't have been from me. I only complained about you once. ;)

Peter Pan
12-08-2010, 5:48pm
And it's a total garbage statement. But then again, any one with common sense (ie. not you) would know that statement was total garbage.

If the Dems REALLY wanted to just extend the tax relief to anyone under $250K, they could have rammed a bill through just like they did the crap Obamacare bill.

But since you have no intelligent rebuttal for that, the rest of us will just sit back and watch you ramble off some diatribe of nonsense in response.

:iagree:The libs still control 100% for the next few weeks and the house already passed the 250k and under, the Senate can do the same if they wanted and the President would gladly sign the bill, oh he can not get the extended handouts to those not wanting to work for 99 weeks.

I am Taxed Enough Already

Peter Pan
12-08-2010, 5:59pm
This is not true. Deficit spending got us out of Bush's recession.

9.8% unemployment and yes the economy is rocking out of this recession and they call the last recession when Bush was president was the jobless recovery, what the heck do you call this one? Minus jobs recovery?

I am Taxed Enough Already:yesnod::yesnod:

Joecooool
12-08-2010, 6:01pm
Well since you Dems still have control of the House and Senate, why did the anointed one cave? They could have rammed more of their crap down the throat of Americans if they really wanted it. :yesnod:Democrats do not have 60 votes in the the senate. I would assume that is the reason.

What ever the reason, I already said I lost a lot of respect for Obama this week. Hopefully (but doubtfully) Pelosi can kill it.

Exotix
12-08-2010, 6:10pm
Democrats do not have 60 votes in the the senate. I would assume that is the reason.

What ever the reason, I already said I lost a lot of respect for Obama this week. Hopefully (but doubtfully) Pelosi can kill it.

I already posted how Congressional Bill voting works and I believe earlier in this thread ... i.e. in terms of the Majority & Supermajority and referred it to him twice already ...

He doesn't want to see it because it doesn't exist ... kind of like what happened when Obama came in ... Bush never existed ...



http://i51.tinypic.com/300wifc.jpg

DropTheTop
12-09-2010, 8:34am
This information is misleading.

The vast majority of wealthy people in this country derive their income from long term capital gains. That is taxed as a maximum of 15% regardless of total income.

Warren Buffet issued a challenge a few years ago to the Forbes 400 to prove that anyone on that list paid more taxes by a percentage of total income than their secretary did. He even offered a million dollars to anyone who could show they do.

No one did.

Read this - Me and My Secretary - Forbes.com (http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/1126/042b.html)

So (some) people should continue to sponge off the Gov and not work, and we should hike the taxes of the rich more? By your logic, the effect would be minimal since the percentage of total income would barely increase. Sounds like you'd like to have the long term capital gain tax percent increased, as that would have a larger effect.

Again, why should the rich pay even more for the support of people not working for 2+ years? There are jobs out there, or all the "undocumented workers" as well as legit immigrants would be packing up and going home. Fact is we have a lot of lazy, proud Americans not willing to settle for less, and live to their means. Not the rich population's place, nor the Governments . . . to coddle them.

Comparing a taxable percentage of billions of dollars to the taxable percentage of 60K is ridiculous. I'm sure the guy paying out 9 Billion of his "lower percentage" is feeling taxed enough already! :D

I'd much rather see an additional 8 billion saved and 1 billion generated, by those 500,000 people small percentage) sitting around laughing it up, as I mentioned.

ChasC5
12-09-2010, 8:42am
This information is misleading.

The vast majority of wealthy people in this country derive their income from long term capital gains. That is taxed as a maximum of 15% regardless of total income.

Warren Buffet issued a challenge a few years ago to the Forbes 400 to prove that anyone on that list paid more taxes by a percentage of total income than their secretary did. He even offered a million dollars to anyone who could show they do.

No one did. or will

Read this - Me and My Secretary - Forbes.com (http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/1126/042b.html)

I'd bet Buffet's Million Dollars that no one on this forum could challenge your above post ... :D

They will dance all arond it or simply ignor it ... :cheers:

DropTheTop
12-09-2010, 8:44am
I'd bet Buffet's Million Dollars that no one on this forum could challenge your above post ... :D

They will dance all arond it or simply ignor it ... :cheers:

:lolsmile: No dancing, no ignoring. Just more logic.

Can I have my Million now?

ChasC5
12-09-2010, 8:48am
"I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief."
--John McCain, May 2001

:D

DropTheTop
12-09-2010, 8:52am
^ More garbage Chas. Do you have any of your own thoughts? Go do the math and see how much higher the guy's taxable percentage rate goes up if he goes from 35% to 39%. Then factor in the 15% of capital gains.

It's negligible. People need to stop sponging and take responsibility for themselves, and stop coveting others.

Here's a quote for you, "Don't hate the player, hate the game".

ChasC5
12-09-2010, 9:08am
^ More garbage Chas. Do you have any of your own thoughts? Go do the math and see how much higher the guy's taxable percentage rate goes up if he goes from 35% to 39%. Then factor in the 15% of capital gains.

It's negligible. People need to stop sponging and take responsibility for themselves, and stop coveting others.

Here's a quote for you, "Don't hate the player, hate the game".

He who rejects change is the architect of decay.
The only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery ... and Republicans.
~Harold Wilson

:cheers:

Exotix
12-09-2010, 9:18am
"I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief."
--John McCain, May 2001

:D

"I cannot in good conscience support DADT because I supported so many of the benefits that went to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who now no longer need tax relief because they're now to ****ed-over since the last time I made this statement ... ."
--John McCain, May 2010



You may cut & paste this post into the *why right-wingers don't even know why you call them visceral* thread also ... sad.

ChasC5
12-09-2010, 9:23am
There is nothing more galling to angry people than the coolness of those on whom they wish to vent their spleen.
~Alexandre Dumas

:D

Joecooool
12-09-2010, 10:10am
So (some) people should continue to sponge off the Gov and not work, and we should hike the taxes of the rich more? By your logic, the effect would be minimal since the percentage of total income would barely increase. Sounds like you'd like to have the long term capital gain tax percent increased, as that would have a larger effect.This argument holds no water. Welfare checks are sent by the state, not the federal government.

Again, why should the rich pay even more for the support of people not working for 2+ years? There are jobs out there, or all the "undocumented workers" as well as legit immigrants would be packing up and going home. Fact is we have a lot of lazy, proud Americans not willing to settle for less, and live to their means. Not the rich population's place, nor the Governments . . . to coddle them.I'm not suggesting that the taxes be increased on the wealthy to pay unemployment benefits. I'm saying they need to be raised because we are 13 trillion dollars in debt and that is going to crush the economy.

Comparing a taxable percentage of billions of dollars to the taxable percentage of 60K is ridiculous. I'm sure the guy paying out 9 Billion of his "lower percentage" is feeling taxed enough already! :DNo one has ever paid nine billion in taxes. The vast majority of income from the nations highest earners comes from capital gains. They have successfully paid off law makers to tax this income at no more than 15%. This is unfair and unheard of in any other first world country. Capital gains is income, it must be taxed as such.

I'd much rather see an additional 8 billion saved and 1 billion generated, by those 500,000 people small percentage) sitting around laughing it up, as I mentioned.Well that logic has already been shot to hell. Bush's tax cuts have been in place for the better part of a decade. Supposedly this is resulting in jobs being generated by the wealthy. Where are the jobs? Voodoo economics has not nor has it ever worked as advertised. Its just bull**** the wealthy use as an excuse to the peons to justify raping the system.

ChasC5
12-09-2010, 10:16am
This argument holds no water. Welfare checks are sent by the state, not the federal government.

I'm not suggesting that the taxes be increased on the wealthy to pay unemployment benefits. I'm saying they need to be raised because we are 13 trillion dollars in debt and that is going to crush the economy.

No one has ever paid nine billion in taxes. The vast majority of income from the nations highest earners comes from capital gains. They have successfully paid off law makers to tax this income at no more than 15%. This is unfair and unheard of in any other first world country. Capital gains is income, it must be taxed as such.

Well that logic has already been shot to hell. Bush's tax cuts have been in place for the better part of a decade. Supposedly this is resulting in jobs being generated by the wealthy. Where are the jobs? Voodoo economics has not nor has it ever worked as advertised. Its just bull**** the wealthy use as an excuse to the peons to justify raping the system.



Joe you are way too Cool for this to be fully digested on the forum … :cheers:


No matter how much Logic you present … :D

Exotix
12-09-2010, 10:24am
Joe you are wat too Cool for this to be fully digested on the forum … :cheers:


No matter how much Logic you present … :D

+1 ... he did a lot for CFPR&C and the corvette community to finally get jacked by the wackos so it's always good to see Mr. Coooool show up from time to time on forums and take a moment to profess ...


:cheers:

Kneel 8250
12-09-2010, 11:50am
They have successfully paid off law makers to tax this income at no more than15%. This is unfair and unheard of in any other first world country. Capital gains is income, it must be taxed as such.

Would you consider Australia to be a "First World Country"???????

Joecooool
12-09-2010, 12:34pm
Would you consider Australia to be a "First World Country"???????Sure. Thank you for making my point. Capital gains in Australia are treated as income and taxed accordingly.

Introduction to capital gains tax (http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.asp?doc=/content/20427.htm)

And just an FYI, anyone in Australia making more than $150K is taxed at 45%.

Peter Pan
12-09-2010, 12:55pm
Sure. Thank you for making my point. Capital gains in Australia are treated as income and taxed accordingly.

Introduction to capital gains tax (http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.asp?doc=/content/20427.htm)

And just an FYI, anyone in Australia making more than $150K is taxed at 45%.

Glad I do not live in Australia, I make my money, I should be able to spend it on what I want, not you, those that want handouts or the Federal and State Govts. Govt wastes my $$ on crap and this is both parties.

I am Taxed Enough Already as I want to spend my hard earned $$ on myself, my family and what I want my income to go to, not what any Govt wants:cheers:

Kneel 8250
12-09-2010, 1:01pm
Sure. Thank you for making my point. Capital gains in Australia are treated as income and taxed accordingly.

Introduction to capital gains tax (http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.asp?doc=/content/20427.htm)

And just an FYI, anyone in Australia making more than $150K is taxed at 45%.

True to a point. You have to realise the capital gain first.
It is also true that Australian tax payers pay far more tax than business.
It is also true that they have more socialist system than here in the USA.
None of that means the Australian system is right for America or the American system is right for Australia. Vive la difference eh.

ChasC5
12-09-2010, 1:09pm
True to a point. You have to realise the capital gain first.
It is also true that Australian tax payers pay far more tax than business.
It is also true that they have more socialist system than here in the USA.
None of that means the Australian system is right for America or the American system is right for Australia. Vive la difference eh.

Peter; you need to buy an Island for you, your family and both your friends and live happily ever after in your own reality. Meanwhile, back in America us Real American’s who actually believe in Country First and not just say it when referencing War, like to take care of each other. Yes, the Old the Young and the Good and Bad, and let a higher power decide the rest.


If we’re willing to pay for an 18 year old for 30 plus years in jail, then a four year College Education isn’t such a bad investment.
If Social Security is good enough for your parents, then why not me?
If bailing out Wall Street is a good thing, then why not pay out Unemployment “Insurance” to those who have it coming?


Go ahead ... flame on ... :D

Peter Pan
12-09-2010, 1:24pm
Peter; you need to buy an Island for you, your family and both your friends and live happily ever after in your own reality. Meanwhile, back in America us Real American’s who actually believe in Country First and not just say it when referencing War, like to take care of each other. Yes, the Old the Young and the Good and Bad, and let a higher power decide the rest.


If we’re willing to pay for an 18 year old for 30 plus years in jail, then a four year College Education isn’t such a bad investment.
If Social Security is good enough for your parents, then why not me?
If bailing out Wall Street is a good thing, then why not pay out Unemployment “Insurance” to those who have it coming?


Go ahead ... flame on ... :D

Those in jail commited crimes and maybe we need to take away more rights while in jail, no TVs less visits no cell phones and more chain gangs with tent cities. College Education is available to the poor already in grants that I pay for, those with $$ pay there way, we can not force someone to go to college even as we do already do grants for the low income.

Social Security is good enough for everyone, to bad both parties have stolen the money and spent it on handouts over the years, the I.O.Us are worthless. Yes you should have it, get both parties to stop the stealing of the $$.

Bailing out Wall Street was not a good idea and going past 6 months on unemployment is not a good idea, get a job that pays less, why America is stuck at almost 10% unemployment, no incentive to find a job until 99 weeks. Just because you had a job does not make it a right that I have to keep you on the roles for 99 weeks.

I am Taxed Enough Already

Kneel 8250
12-09-2010, 1:26pm
Peter; you need to buy an Island for you, your family and both your friends and live happily ever after in your own reality. Meanwhile, back in America us Real American’s who actually believe in Country First and not just say it when referencing War, like to take care of each other. Yes, the Old the Young and the Good and Bad, and let a higher power decide the rest.


If we’re willing to pay for an 18 year old for 30 plus years in jail, then a four year College Education isn’t such a bad investment.
If Social Security is good enough for your parents, then why not me?
If bailing out Wall Street is a good thing, then why not pay out Unemployment “Insurance” to those who have it coming?


Go ahead ... flame on ... :D

Hang five there mate. My name is not Peter!!!!!!!!!
Dont quote me and reply to someone else's post thanks.
BTW. You seem to indicate that the World OWE's you something. Bad news is it doesnt. Get off your Ar$e and actually earn your money like the rest of us.

Z06PDQ
12-09-2010, 1:28pm
Hopefully he won't bring that kind of **** over here ...

:cheers:

too late. :lol:

Z06PDQ
12-09-2010, 1:42pm
bring back the Eisenhower tax rates. :cheers: the 1950's was a Golden Age [yeah,I'm an old fart] :D the rich were heavily taxed & the economy absolutely EXPLODED! it's an uncomfortable fact for the Reich Wingers that every time the wealthy have been taxed the economy took off. :beer:

Tinkerbell in Texas
12-09-2010, 1:44pm
Hang five there mate. My name is not Peter!!!!!!!!!
Dont quote me and reply to someone else's post thanks.
BTW. You seem to indicate that the World OWE's you something. Bad news is it doesnt. Get off your Ar$e and actually earn your money like the rest of us.

:above:

ChasC5
12-09-2010, 2:03pm
Hang five there mate. My name is not Peter!!!!!!!!!
Dont quote me and reply to someone else's post thanks.
BTW. You seem to indicate that the World OWE's you something. Bad news is it doesnt. Get off your Ar$e and actually earn your money like the rest of us.

My Bad, I was distracted ... :D I stand Corrected :kick:

Peter .. you have the Ball .

leec4ce
12-09-2010, 2:13pm
No one has ever paid nine billion in taxes. The vast majority of income from the nations highest earners comes from capital gains. They have successfully paid off law makers to tax this income at no more than 15%. This is unfair and unheard of in any other first world country. Capital gains is income, it must be taxed as such.

Wrong:

According to the Office of Tax Analysis, the U.S. individual income tax is "highly progressive," with a small group of higher-income taxpayers paying most of the individual income taxes each year.


In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income.

The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.

Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.
Treasury Department analysts credit President Bush's tax cuts with shifting a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income taxpayers. In 2005, says the Treasury, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers will rise.


The share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers will fall from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent.

The share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers will rise from 32.3 percent to 33.7 percent.

The average tax rate for the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers falls by 27 percent as compared to a 13 percent decline for taxpayers in the top 1 percent.
The White House has announced it will lobby Congress to pass legislation making most of President Bush's tax cutting measures permanent.

Source: U.S. Treasury, Office of Tax Analysis

Z06PDQ
12-09-2010, 2:18pm
so we are quoting government stats when it works for us & then calling them liars on things like unemployment rates? :lol:

ChasC5
12-09-2010, 2:18pm
Wrong:

According to the Office of Tax Analysis, the U.S. individual income tax is "highly progressive," with a small group of higher-income taxpayers paying most of the individual income taxes each year.


In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income.

The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.

Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.
Treasury Department analysts credit President Bush's tax cuts with shifting a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income taxpayers. In 2005, says the Treasury, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers will rise.


The share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers will fall from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent.

The share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers will rise from 32.3 percent to 33.7 percent.

The average tax rate for the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers falls by 27 percent as compared to a 13 percent decline for taxpayers in the top 1 percent.
The White House has announced it will lobby Congress to pass legislation making most of President Bush's tax cutting measures permanent.

Source: U.S. Treasury, Office of Tax Analysis


Here yea go ... :D

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b137/chasc5/BooHoo.jpg

DropTheTop
12-09-2010, 2:29pm
This argument holds no water. Welfare checks are sent by the state, not the federal government.

I'm not talking about welfare, I'm talking about people that are taking advantage of the extended unemployment benefits, and not even bothering to look or accept work. These people do exist, and they need to be forced back on their feet. Survival mode will snap back in when the free ride ends. Then we save money in payouts and gain more tax revenue. Don't punish the rich further, is all I'm saying.

I'm not suggesting that the taxes be increased on the wealthy to pay unemployment benefits. I'm saying they need to be raised because we are 13 trillion dollars in debt and that is going to crush the economy.

Government needs to cut spending, not eliminate the desire to succeed and chase the rich out of our country.

No one has ever paid nine billion in taxes. The vast majority of income from the nations highest earners comes from capital gains. They have successfully paid off law makers to tax this income at no more than 15%. This is unfair and unheard of in any other first world country. Capital gains is income, it must be taxed as such.

You are forgetting to mention that short term gains are taxed at the regular rate, and only long term gains are taxed at 15%. Those people are taking a risk with their investments, and thank goodness! Would you prefer they all pull out and move their money elsewhere?

Well that logic has already been shot to hell. Bush's tax cuts have been in place for the better part of a decade. Supposedly this is resulting in jobs being generated by the wealthy. Where are the jobs? Voodoo economics has not nor has it ever worked as advertised. Its just bull**** the wealthy use as an excuse to the peons to justify raping the system.

If I were rich, I'd have had a hard time risking investments with this past decade's political climate, multiple wars, housing fall, bailouts, enabled unemployment, etc... If we bring assurance back to the people, and take some fear of risks away, we'll see a turnaround. But only when people are motivated to succeed and find it worthwhile.


I can't believe how many people want to ride off the success (and death) of certain individuals, rather than work for their own slice of the pie.

Exotix
12-09-2010, 2:46pm
I can't believe how many people want to ride off the success (and death) of certain individuals, rather than work for their own slice of the pie.

You must've missed *born with a silver spoon up his azz and admits it* Businessman John Raese running in W.Va. this last time around ...


Raese's riches in West Virginia, Florida - Maggie Haberman - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/blogs/maggiehaberman/0910/Raeses_riches_in_West_Virginia_Florida_.html)


Businessman John Raese, the GOP nominee in the race for Byrd's seat, has run twice before, and was once the the West Virginia GOP chairman, making his back story as a businessman somewhat different from others entering politics from the corporate world this cycle who are claiming political purity.

Some are taking a fresh look at the Greer Industries heir who, as labor officials noted with glee today in a clip they sent around, has often joked about earning his money through inheritance, including in a radio interview yesterday.

Raese leads a lavish lifestyle that's included over 15 cars, boats and motorcycles, a home in Florida where his family lives full-time and where, records show, he paved the driveway with marble in 2008 as the economy was nosediving.

The fact of Raese's family living in another state fulltime almost certain to come up on the campaign trail.



Elizabeth and John Raese have a nearly 7,000-square-foot home, one where in 2008 — shortly after the first of the TARP package was being allocated — the Raeses put in permits to repave their marble driveway with fresh pink stone.

They've also claimed homeowners' exemptions, which are available only to Florida state residents, including a $25,000 one this year, according to Palm Beach County property records, because of his wife's residence.



*My thanks to all of you who are taxed enough already for all my stuff .. *

Here come the girls: Sarah Palin lines up with Republican candidate for Senate John Raese (left) and performer Ted Nugent in Charleston, West Virginia.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/11/02/article-1325818-0BD7673D000005DC-214_634x393.jpg

Joecooool
12-09-2010, 3:04pm
Wrong:

According to the Office of Tax Analysis, the U.S. individual income tax is "highly progressive," with a small group of higher-income taxpayers paying most of the individual income taxes each year.


In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income.

The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.

Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.
Treasury Department analysts credit President Bush's tax cuts with shifting a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income taxpayers. In 2005, says the Treasury, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers will rise.


The share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers will fall from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent.

The share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers will rise from 32.3 percent to 33.7 percent.

The average tax rate for the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers falls by 27 percent as compared to a 13 percent decline for taxpayers in the top 1 percent.
The White House has announced it will lobby Congress to pass legislation making most of President Bush's tax cutting measures permanent.

Source: U.S. Treasury, Office of Tax AnalysisYou say I'm wrong then post irrelevent information.

Here, I'll let you take another stab at it -

"No one has ever paid nine billion in taxes. The vast majority of income from the nations highest earners comes from capital gains. They have successfully paid off law makers to tax this income at no more than 15%. This is unfair and unheard of in any other first world country. Capital gains is income, it must be taxed as such."

DropTheTop
12-09-2010, 3:05pm
You just keep on hating. Perhaps some day you'll get your wish of standing in a bread line because you, and everyone else, gave up the will to live and flourish to the hands of communism.

Joecooool
12-09-2010, 3:25pm
Originally Posted by Joecooool
This argument holds no water. Welfare checks are sent by the state, not the federal government.

I'm not talking about welfare, I'm talking about people that are taking advantage of the extended unemployment benefits, and not even bothering to look or accept work. These people do exist, and they need to be forced back on their feet. Survival mode will snap back in when the free ride ends. Then we save money in payouts and gain more tax revenue. Don't punish the rich further, is all I'm saying.I have said repeatedly that I do not support extensions of benefits for those out of work. That point is irrelevant to this discussion.

I'm not suggesting that the taxes be increased on the wealthy to pay unemployment benefits. I'm saying they need to be raised because we are 13 trillion dollars in debt and that is going to crush the economy.

Government needs to cut spending, not eliminate the desire to succeed and chase the rich out of our country. Your solution is simply absurd. We are 13 trillion in debt. Our federal budget is 3.5 trillion and our intake in all taxes is only 2.3 trillion. We would have to cut about a third of everything just to stay at the current debt level. I'm a supporter of cutting many programs but the reality is even if we cut ten percent across the board, we still need to generate about an extra billion in revenue. Failure to raise taxes is going to destroy this nation for generations.

No one has ever paid nine billion in taxes. The vast majority of income from the nations highest earners comes from capital gains. They have successfully paid off law makers to tax this income at no more than 15%. This is unfair and unheard of in any other first world country. Capital gains is income, it must be taxed as such.

You are forgetting to mention that short term gains are taxed at the regular rate, and only long term gains are taxed at 15%. Those people are taking a risk with their investments, and thank goodness! Would you prefer they all pull out and move their money elsewhere?I'm not forgetting anything. The VAST MAJORITY of money the wealthiest Americans make every year comes from long term capital gains. It needs to be counted as income and taxed accordingly.

Well that logic has already been shot to hell. Bush's tax cuts have been in place for the better part of a decade. Supposedly this is resulting in jobs being generated by the wealthy. Where are the jobs? Voodoo economics has not nor has it ever worked as advertised. Its just bull**** the wealthy use as an excuse to the peons to justify raping the system.

If I were rich, I'd have had a hard time risking investments with this past decade's political climate, multiple wars, housing fall, bailouts, enabled unemployment, etc... If we bring assurance back to the people, and take some fear of risks away, we'll see a turnaround. But only when people are motivated to succeed and find it worthwhile.Again an argument that holds no water. If you are wealthy you HAVE to invest in something. You can't just sell all your assets in put the money in the bank. First its only insured to 100,000 dollars, second, you lose your ass even with slight inflation. The wealthy are forced to invest.

I can't believe how many people want to ride off the success (and death) of certain individuals, rather than work for their own slice of the pie. I disagree that there are many people that want to do this. I'm shocked that you can understand and accept that every single person on the Forbes 400 richest Americans list pays less - as a percentage of total income - in taxes, than their secretaries. Truly, this is a shame.

DropTheTop
12-09-2010, 4:44pm
I have said repeatedly that I do not support extensions of benefits for those out of work. That point is irrelevant to this discussion.

Tens of millions of people not working for two years and adding their proper due to the tax system is irrelevant, so punish the rich. Check.

Your solution is simply absurd. We are 13 trillion in debt. Our federal budget is 3.5 trillion and our intake in all taxes is only 2.3 trillion. We would have to cut about a third of everything just to stay at the current debt level. I'm a supporter of cutting many programs but the reality is even if we cut ten percent across the board, we still need to generate about an extra billion in revenue. Failure to raise taxes is going to destroy this nation for generations.

Government should not cut spending. The rich should cough up more of their money while the rest of the people give up the pursuit of life and dreams to get paid by their communist government. Check.

I'm not forgetting anything. The VAST MAJORITY of money the wealthiest Americans make every year comes from long term capital gains. It needs to be counted as income and taxed accordingly.

Again an argument that holds no water. If you are wealthy you HAVE to invest in something. You can't just sell all your assets in put the money in the bank. First its only insured to 100,000 dollars, second, you lose your ass even with slight inflation. The wealthy are forced to invest.

Raise capital gains tax for the rich, to a level that allows the government to continue paying out to everyone else, without affecting it's already bloated budget. Check.

I disagree that there are many people that want to do this. I'm shocked that you can understand and accept that every single person on the Forbes 400 richest Americans list pays less - as a percentage of total income - in taxes, than their secretaries. Truly, this is a shame.

I fully understand the whole percentage of total income equation. What I can't believe is that some people wish to place everyone on the same level, thereby eliminating the motivation to succeed and take risks.

I'll go out on a limb and suggest that a secretary probably isn't investing the same amount of money as the CEO of the company she works for. But somehow it's the CEO's fault that she made all the choices in life that lead up to her accepting the position of secretary, and accepting the wages offered. Sure, go ahead and tax him more in a recession. That will teach him for being successful. And I'm sure she'll really appreciate it when he says FU and sells the company or liquidates it leaving her home to collect for two years. Obama will pay her mortgage. :willy:

Hey, maybe we could add an even higher tax bracket for those with natural talent. You know, "entertainers". I mean, it's so unfair that everyone's genetic code isn't the same. They should be punished too.

Z06PDQ
12-09-2010, 5:40pm
You just keep on hating. Perhaps some day you'll get your wish of standing in a bread line because you, and everyone else, gave up the will to live and flourish to the hands of communism.

your precious capitalism has failed miserably & it's failed world wide. will the capitalists give us commies free bread? :D

leec4ce
12-10-2010, 1:04pm
You say I'm wrong then post irrelevent information.

Here, I'll let you take another stab at it -

"No one has ever paid nine billion in taxes. The vast majority of income from the nations highest earners comes from capital gains. They have successfully paid off law makers to tax this income at no more than 15%. This is unfair and unheard of in any other first world country. Capital gains is income, it must be taxed as such."

First sentence:

According to the Office of Tax Analysis, the U.S. individual income tax is "highly progressive," with a small group of higher-income taxpayers paying most of the individual income taxes each year.

The relative information is the progressive tax code. It’s all about taxable income not just income tax and capital gains. As Chase likes to say “If your taxed enough already you need to a tax accountant”.

You care to compute a $100,000 taxable income single person at 21.71% and compare it to 1 Million in capital gains at 15% and see who pays more.

As for “This is unfair and unheard of in any other first world country”:

An International Comparison of Capital Gains Tax Rates

Most industrial and developing countries tax individual and corporate capital gains more lightly than does the United States, according to a survey of twenty-four industrialized and developing countries that the ACCF Center for Policy Research commissioned from Arthur Andersen LLP. The Center's analysis shows that the United States taxes both short- and long-term capital gains more harshly than most other countries. High capital gains tax rates increase the bias against saving and investment, raise the cost of capital for new investment, and slow U.S. economic growth.

You are absolutely right the progressive tax code is unfair and needs some kind of overhaul maybe a Flat Tax or National Sales Tax. :cheers:

ChasC5
12-10-2010, 1:11pm
You are absolutely right the progressive tax code is unfair and needs some kind of overhaul maybe a Flat Tax or National Sales Tax. :cheers:

:iagree:

This was a problem 10 years ago and 20 years ago; not just 20 Months ago. :cheers:

leec4ce
12-10-2010, 1:12pm
so we are quoting government stats when it works for us & then calling them liars on things like unemployment rates? :lol:

Government State are Goverment States:


The U.S. Department of Labor

From Apr 2008 low of 4.8 unemployment to a high of 10.6 Jan 2010.
2009 is showing the largest increases from 8.5 to the high of 10.6 in Jan 2010. 2010 is showing downward trend through the month of month of Oct at 9.0. Hopefully the trend will continue down. Until the 8% as government said would never go over just can’t say catastrophe avoided. The catastrophe has already happen.

ChasC5
12-10-2010, 1:16pm
Government State are Goverment States:


The U.S. Department of Labor

From Apr 2008 low of 4.8 unemployment to a high of 10.6 Jan 2010.
2009 is showing the largest increases from 8.5 to the high of 10.6 in Jan 2010. 2010 is showing downward trend through the month of month of Oct at 9.0. Hopefully the trend will continue down. Until the 8% as government said would never go over just can’t say catastrophe avoided. The catastrophe has already happen.

Do you have any idea what led to what happened in 2009 and 2010?

Or is it a freak of nature ... :skep:

Maybe we just woke up on January 1st 2009 and everything went to hell. :D

leec4ce
12-10-2010, 1:29pm
Do you have any idea what led to what happened in 2009 and 2010?

Or is it a freak of nature ... :skep:

Maybe we just woke up on January 1st 2009 and everything went to hell. :D

No freak of nature

Maybe we fell asleep in in 2000 :above: woke up in January 2009 sing "He did it He did it So we can do it too :above:

ChasC5
12-10-2010, 1:45pm
No freak of nature

Maybe we fell asleep in in 2000 :above: woke up in January 2009 sing "He did it He did it So we can do it too :above:


Anyone who knows how to analyze problems, first analyzes the root causes.

The United States of America choose to take-in less Tax revenue in both 2001 and 2003.

Fact; Treasury Revenues consistently decreased over the last decade.

Then came the Economic a collapse in 2008

Cause = Effect

Or

Deny = Deny

Your Choice

:cheers:

Exotix
12-10-2010, 2:11pm
Anyone who knows how to analyze problems, first analyzes the root causes.

The United States of America choose to take-in less Tax revenue in both 2001 and 2003.

Fact; Treasury Revenues consistently decreased over the last decade.

Then came the Economic a collapse in 2008

Cause = Effect

Or

Deny = Deny

Your Choice

:cheers:

There's only one reason that the (R)'s are compelled to destroy America ... so they can privatize it ... this has been a criminal conspiracy based on a slow burn of subversion of the Founding Fathers / U.S. Constitution since the advent of William McKinley known as the one true Godfather of neo-conservatism (though this demogogy of neo-conservatism didn't come to fruition until Reagan) ...

As the Tea Party fizzles out in terms of *re-inventing / re-interpreting* what the Founding Fathers *really meant* (actually believing that the Founding Fathers puposely meant for silences in the constitution so that somebody would come along to abolish it) ..
... the (R)'s simply waited for Tea Party fanaticism to die down so to get on with their Bush Tax Cut *revisionism* that will take America over the cliff ...

Although taking Obama down is merely incidental as the *Party of No* at a time America is in critical condition ... this is in fact the only way they can do it ... and do it now ...

From Trade Policies to entitlements ... this is the real discussion (I-Vermont) Bernie Sanders has been leading since 7 a.m this morning ...

... nobody should miss this discussion with regards to this (D) Bush Tax Cut extension Filibuster ...

Joecooool
12-10-2010, 2:42pm
Most industrial and developing countries tax individual and corporate capital gains more lightly than does the United States, according to a survey of twenty-four industrialized and developing countries that the ACCF Center for Policy Research commissioned from Arthur Andersen LLP. The Center's analysis shows that the United States taxes both short- and long-term capital gains more harshly than most other countries. High capital gains tax rates increase the bias against saving and investment, raise the cost of capital for new investment, and slow U.S. economic growth.


So it should be real easy for you to provide examples then.

Peter Pan
12-10-2010, 4:38pm
Anyone who knows how to analyze problems, first analyzes the root causes.

The United States of America choose to take-in less Tax revenue in both 2001 and 2003.

Fact; Treasury Revenues consistently decreased over the last decade.

Then came the Economic a collapse in 2008

Cause = Effect

Or

Deny = Deny

Your Choice

:cheers:

The real problem is uncontrolled spending, even if the tax code goes back to 2001 levels our country will still have defict spending. We as a nation have to get spending to be less than what our country takes in and pretty soon we are going to run out of tax payers $$.

I am taxed enough already

Peter Pan
12-10-2010, 5:25pm
:iagree: And that's been coming from both sides, with the Dems leading the way.

You are right here both sides are spending way to much and yes the Dems have uncontrolled spending and even more taxes will not get us out of the current lib spending habits, not that the reps can, time for our Govt to spend less than they tax to get our books in order:yesnod:

ChasC5
12-11-2010, 10:45am
You are right here both sides are spending way to much and yes the Dems have uncontrolled spending and even more taxes will not get us out of the current lib spending habits, not that the reps can, time for our Govt to spend less than they tax to get our books in order:yesnod:

You two need a room. :D

ChasC5
12-11-2010, 6:23pm
You need a clue.

Grow up and actually make a point or STFU Chas.

Meeeowwwww. :D

Exotix
12-11-2010, 8:06pm
Independent-Socialist ... :willy: ... Senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, made good on his threat to filibuster US President Barack Obama’s deal with Republicans to extend the Bush Tax Cuts in exchange for an extension on unemployment benefits.

Today

Sanders Filibusters Bush Tax Cut Deal (http://www.therightperspective.org/2010/12/11/sanders-filibusters-bush-tax-cut-deal/)





The Friday filibuster lasted 8.5 hours, the longest Congressional protest to occur on the Senate floor in 27 years.
Sanders started at 10:25 a.m. and finally restored control back to the Speaker at 07:00 p.m.

The Socialist was aided by Democrat Party comrades Sherrod Brown from Ohio ... :skep: .... who gave a 45-minute speech against the Obama deal, and Mary Landrieu from Louisiana, who spoke for 30 minutes.


The Friday filibuster lasted 8.5 hours, the longest Congressional protest to occur on the Senate floor in 27 years. Sanders started at 10:25 a.m. and finally restored control back to the Speaker at 07:00 p.m.

The Socialist was aided by Democrat Party comrades Sherrod Brown from Ohio, who gave a 45-minute speech against the Obama deal, and Mary Landrieu from Louisiana, who spoke for 30 minutes.

History shows that, while effective in drawing attention to the legislation being filibustered, the marathon protests rarely are effective in stopping it from becoming law.

Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd broke records in their unsuccessful filibusters to stop Civil Rights bills from becoming law in the 1950′s and 1960′s.
However, before his assassination in 1935, Louisiana Senator Huey Long was able to stop bills that rewarded wealthy Americans at the expense of the poor.




While pundits predict Sanders will ultimately be unable to stop Obama’s deal on the Bush tax cuts, The LA Times dubbed it a success because of its attention-getting quality.

A live stream of the event from Sanders’ official website drew 12,000 viewers at one point, crashing the servers.

The event was also a hot topic of discussion on the micro-blogging website Twitter; the Senator was able to more than double his followers from 9,800 to 21,000 because of the coverage.

The UK Guardian said Sanders will help to stiffen Democrat’s resolve in the next session of Congress, and suggested that he may mount a presidential challenge to Obama in the 2012 elections.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he would bring the Obama tax deal up for vote next week, despite the Sanders filibuster.



YouTube - Sanders Filibuster Begins...







Bernie Sanders, Democrats And Other Insane Asylum Members ... :willy:


Today

Bernie Sanders, Democrats And Other Insane Asylum Members | The Moderate Voice (http://themoderatevoice.com/94785/bernie-sanders-democrats-and-other-insane-asylum-members/)


The Democrats are the best compassionate political party in America and the worst at governing, except for the Republicans who want no part of it but say they do.

The Democratic mantra was expressed eloquently and redundantly Friday by Sen. Bernie Sanders, the independent from Vermont.

Sanders spoke for eight hours in an empty Senate chambers extolling the grief inflicted upon us by those dastardly devilish Republicans who he described as greedy bastards who can afford a penny ante 4% tax increase.

In those eight hours, Sanders recapped history of how the American working man is getting screwed, highlighted by the once golden standard auto workers who’s salaries in just the past three years have shrunk from $27 to $14 an hour.




The problem with Sanders and his Democratic Party buddies is that their policies work only if unemployment is below 3%, the economy is riding the latest artificial bubble and the nation is not at war with some fourth rate rogue nation or terrorist group which hijacked a religion.

It grieves my sensibilities that the Democratic Party argument against extending the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% would cost an additional $700 billion in 10 years to our national debt.

And not once point out that the tax cuts for those earners under $250K would cost $3 trillion over the same 10-year period.




Ah, conventional wisdom tells us never to raise taxes on anyone during a recession.

Bunk, I say. Prove it.

The conservatives who argue for less taxes and limited government can’t. Nor can the Democratic Keynesian economists.
At least not in this recession even though the idiots declared it over last year.

This is why the worst of all worlds, the compromise everyone hates most or part of, is the only deal we are forced fed to live with.




That is the one now being worked out brokered by President Obama and Senate Republicans.

It is the political can kicked down the road for two years by extending all the Bush tax cuts until days after the presidential election in 2012, extending unemployment benefits an additional 13 months, cutting the payroll tax 2% for one year, exempting taxes on business expansion for one year and taxing estates 50% over a predetermined multimillion dollar threshold.

Former President Clinton says it is the best political deal under the worst of economic conditions.

If Bill Clinton says it, it must be true.

Right.






Bernie Sanders argues for Veterans compensation at a *Middle Class is Collapsing* Ralley July 2008 ... rejected yesterday by the Republicans.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_NgXwpjGGj_w/SIlC06Yju3I/AAAAAAAAAMI/4MsDFfV-YEg/s400/Bernie+Sanders.jpg

Y2Kvert4me
12-11-2010, 8:12pm
It grieves my sensibilities that the Democratic Party argument against extending the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% would cost an additional $700 billion in 10 years to our national debt.

And not once point out that the tax cuts for those earners under $250K would cost $3 trillion over the same 10-year period.
Penny-wise, dollar-foolish.


:cheers:

Exotix
12-11-2010, 8:17pm
Penny-wise, dollar-foolish.


:cheers:

I'd be curious as to what some of the Bush worshippers have to say about the below quote from the article when he signed his first $1.37 Trillion Bush Tax Cut because ... *that's what wise-men do when you have a surplus left-over from the previous administration ... *


The problem with Sanders and his Democratic Party buddies is that their policies work only if unemployment is below 3%, the economy is riding the latest artificial bubble and the nation is not at war with some fourth rate rogue nation or terrorist group which hijacked a religion.

Y2Kvert4me
12-11-2010, 8:50pm
I'd be curious as to what some of the Bush worshippers have to say about the below quote from the article when he signed his first $1.37 Trillion Bush Tax Cut because ... *that's what wise-men do when you have a surplus left-over from the previous administration ... *And those tax cuts didn't significantly affect the budget plan for 6 years. Go figure.

Only when increased spending came into play did the budget deficit suddenly appear, yet you blame the (unchanged) tax structure as the root cause? :skep:

Expand your logic and consider other variables for a "change". With 10% unemployment, promoting higher taxes to everyone isn't likely to solve the economic issues we face. Raising taxes to only those who already pay the most will certainly make it worse.


And for REAL change, instead of simply quoting a media source, what are YOUR ideas to remedy the situation? The exotix claims to know it all, now is his time to share his ideas and solutions instead of merely critiquing past presidents.

if you know what they did wrong, certainly you know what to do to fix it, no?


:cheers:

Exotix
12-12-2010, 8:42am
And those tax cuts didn't significantly affect the budget plan for 6 years. Go figure.

Only when increased spending came into play did the budget deficit suddenly appear, yet you blame the (unchanged) tax structure as the root cause? :skep:

Expand your logic and consider other variables for a "change". With 10% unemployment, promoting higher taxes to everyone isn't likely to solve the economic issues we face. Raising taxes to only those who already pay the most will certainly make it worse.


And for REAL change, instead of simply quoting a media source, what are YOUR ideas to remedy the situation? The exotix claims to know it all, now is his time to share his ideas and solutions instead of merely critiquing past presidents.

if you know what they did wrong, certainly you know what to do to fix it, no?


:cheers:

First, when I quoted from these media sources ... well, the exotix has no problem with quoting from wackadoo media bents that proliferate from one end of the political spectrum to the other ...

... say for instance here's one from that *other side of the political bent* you will never ever see from right-wacko media let alone the Republican Party ..



Financial Times ~ ‘Dangerous’ GOP Supply-Side Tax-Cuts Will Destroy America


July 26, 2010


http://chattahbox.com/business/2010/07/26/financial-times-dangerous-gop-supply-side-tax-cuts-will-destroy-america/



Democrats, economists, financial experts, even a former Bush economic adviser, have all sounded the alarm on the danger of the failed Republican economic policies of ignoring the deficit when cutting taxes for the rich, by refusing to cut spending in other areas to pay for them.

Republicans have amnesia when it comes to their failed supply-side economics policies of the Reagan and Bush administrations.

What is the GOP plan, if they win the House majority in the November elections?
Cut taxes for the rich.
How will they be paid for?

Tax cuts for the wealthy pay for themselves, insist Republicans.
Outside of the GOP rabbit hole, in the reality-based world, tax cuts DO NOT pay for themselves, they add to the deficit.

Martin Wolf, associate editor of the UK Financial Times, penned a provocative piece condemning the failed supply-side economic policies of Republicans, as a “dangerous,” and “irresponsible and unsustainable” calculated political scam that promises voters a “free lunch,” while destroying the American economy.



Wolf is fearful that if the GOP regains power in the mid-term elections, they will finish the job that George W. Bush started and nearly succeeded at.
And take America into insolvency, dragging down the rest of the world with us.




Some key takeaways from Wolf’s apt doomsday piece:


■ Republican supply-side economic policies are about to take us over a cliff and there are no longer sane voices in the GOP to stop it.

“Republicans have no interest in doing anything sensible,” writes Wolf.
And when the Democrats under the Clinton administration created a healthy sound surplus, the Republicans pissed it away as soon as they regained power.



■ Republicans are hypocritical when it comes to their deficit concerns.

“But no, it is not deficits themselves that worry Republicans, but rather how they are caused: deficits caused by tax cuts are fine; but spending increases brought in by Democrats are diabolical, unless on the military,” says Wolf.



■ The stimulus bill was too small to have a true stimulative effect on our economy.

And the U.S. desperately needs more stimulus, NOT more tax cuts.

“In any case, the stimulus was certainly too small, not too large.”

Wolf concludes that “across-the-board tax cuts are an extremely inefficient way of providing it.”




■ Republican tax-cutting policies have developed into a familiar scam.

They cut taxes and the deficit explodes.

Republicans then start screeching they need to cut social welfare programs to reduce the deficit, as evidenced by the recent fight over paying for the extension of emergency unemployment benefits.



Suddenly, the deficit matters to the GOP when it involves spending money on poor people.
And then they cut taxes some more.

Supply-side economics is based on a vicious and destructive rationale.





Writes Wolf, “The political genius of this idea is evident.
Supply-side economics transformed Republicans from a minority party into a majority party.
It allowed them to promise lower taxes, lower deficits and, in effect, unchanged spending.

Why should people not like this combination? Who does not like a free lunch?”



“Finally, if deficits did not, in fact, disappear, conservatives could fall back on the “starve the beast” theory: deficits would create a fiscal crisis that would force the government to cut spending and even destroy the hated welfare state.”





What does this say for the future of America’s economy ?

Wolf envisions an eventual catastrophe, and he may be right.
Paul Krugman,The New York Times Pulitzer Prize-wining economist, said of Wolf’s piece:

“Wolf’s argument and main points are similar to those I made in a recent column; that’s not a criticism, because we need more people saying this.Martin ends on a deeply pessimistic note.
I wish I could disagree.”


Wolf concludes, the U.S. economy will continue to deteriorate, as long as Republicans continue to insist tax cuts are self-financing.

“Finally, with one party indifferent to deficits, provided they are brought about by tax cuts, and the other party relatively fiscally responsible (well, everything is relative, after all), but opposed to spending cuts on core programmes, US fiscal policy is paralysed.

I may think the policies of the UK government dangerously austere, but at least it can act.”





Perhaps the best takeaway from Wolf’s condemnation of GOP policies, comes in a comment defending himself against attacks that he is a crazy Socialist.

He responds by daring Republicans to be honest with their constituents about their tax-cutting, small government policies, by actually admitting what programs they will cut to pay for tax cuts for the rich:

“A number of commentators assume that I am a European socialist (not true) and am attacking the Republicans for this reason (also not true).

I believe Americans are entitled to make their own choices.
But then make it an honest choice.




Let the Republicans stand at the next election on the following principles: abolition of Medicare (and, of course, the recent health care bill); abolition of Social Security; abolition of federal assistance to the states; and radical tax cuts. I think that would be an honest programme.

I strongly suspect it would be politically suicidal.
But promising the tax cuts without specifying the spending cuts is dishonest and dishonourable.

Would paying for the promises the US has made to its citizens destroy the economy ?
No, in my view and certainly not as much as not paying would.”

Yes, indeed.
When you hear Republican lawmakers promoting unpaid for tax cuts, ask them point blank what programs they will eliminate to reduce the deficit.

So far, the GOP is unwilling to answer that question.




(R-Ky.) Sen. *Obama is a one-term President* Mitch McConnell does the now infamous (R) Iraq Flak Jacket Walk in the city of Sab-al-Bor in April of 2009 ...



http://i55.tinypic.com/2yo3fjo.jpg

ChasC5
12-12-2010, 9:19am
Well there you have it. :cheers::D

leec4ce
12-13-2010, 8:29am
So it should be real easy for you to provide examples then.

Yes very easy. :cheers:

Z06PDQ
12-13-2010, 12:51pm
"GOP Will Destroy America." ............... that's some scary **** right there. :yesnod:

ChasC5
12-13-2010, 12:59pm
Chas, what is a tax?? it's TAKING money from the person who earns it.
A tax cut is NOT taking as much of their money as previously.

Do you balance the budget in your household?

If you do, then there’s no further need to pretend you don’t know the obvious.

:D

Kneel 8250
12-13-2010, 1:20pm
Do you balance the budget in your household?

If you do, then there’s no further need to pretend you don’t know the obvious.

:D

Meeeeooooow !!!!!! :D

Meeeowwwww.

ChasC5
12-13-2010, 1:23pm
Meeeeooooow !!!!!! :D

Meeeowwwww.

Don’t get me started … that was a slow inside curve ball that will never come down after I hit it. :D

Kneel 8250
12-13-2010, 1:30pm
Don’t get me started … that was a slow inside curve ball that will never come down after I hit it. :D


Took me a couple of minutes to find it too. Tho I did remember it was there which for me is a REAL bonus. :lol:

Kneel 8250
12-13-2010, 1:31pm
Don’t get me started … that was a slow inside curve ball that will never come down after I hit it. :D

Maybe I should quote it so it is there for posterity. Well thats if I can ever find it again eh!!!!!!!!!!! You know at my age ............

Exotix
12-13-2010, 3:37pm
Tax Debate (Compromise) in Session ... (special Boehner tearing-up bonus inside)


msnbc.com Video Player

Kneel 8250
12-13-2010, 3:46pm
Tax Debate (Compromise) in Session ... (special Boehner tearing-up bonus inside)


msnbc.com Video Player (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/40638994#40638994)

CRIKEY !!!!!!!!
Is this the tax debate thread???????? :lol:

Peter Pan
12-13-2010, 3:54pm
Do you balance the budget in your household?

If you do, then there’s no further need to pretend you don’t know the obvious.

:D

Budget, no I am starting to follow the lead of the President and Congress, seems what they have done in the last two years meets your approval, so I am jumping on their budget bandwagon:lolsmile::lolsmile:

Exotix
12-13-2010, 3:55pm
CRIKEY !!!!!!!!
Is this the tax debate thread???????? :lol:

Well, Boner does say the (R) hostage-taking compromise (that he objects to being called) thinks it will create jobs ... keyphrase here is ... *he thinks* ...

Otherwise he's backing himself by crying for the camera that because he worked as a janitor ... you can too ...


http://i56.tinypic.com/m97nfc.gif

Kneel 8250
12-13-2010, 4:33pm
Well, Boner does say the (R) hostage-taking compromise (that he objects to being called) thinks it will create jobs ... keyphrase here is ... *he thinks* ...

Otherwise he's backing himself by crying for the camera that because he worked as a janitor ... you can too ...


http://i56.tinypic.com/m97nfc.gif

I love that line. It's great. Might have to refer back to that later too.
Hey !!!!! You never know your luck in a big city and it might work in another thread somewhere. :D

Exotix
12-13-2010, 4:41pm
I love that line. It's great. Might have to refer back to that later too.
Hey !!!!! You never know your luck in a big city and it might work in another thread somewhere. :D

Ah aim'z ta pleeze ... http://i51.tinypic.com/3515rp5.gif

Exotix
12-13-2010, 4:52pm
*Breaking*

Tax bill gets 60 votes, set to pass first Senate hurdle.

Final passage of the bill in the Senate is expected on Tuesday



Tax bill gets 60 votes, set to pass first Senate hurdle - Politics - Capitol Hill - msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40637568/ns/politics-capitol_hill/)


WASHINGTON — Legislation to avert a Jan. 1 increase in income tax rates has gained 60 votes in the Senate, the level needed to advance toward a final vote.

The roll call is continuing, and the test vote is not final.
But the bipartisan show of support is a strong indication the measure will be passed and sent to the House, possibly as early as Tuesday.


The bill provide a two-year reprieve in the tax increases that are scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1 at all income levels.

It also reduces Social Security taxes for every wage earner in 2011 and extends an expiring program of jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed.

The bill would provide a two-year reprieve in the tax increases scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1 at all income levels, reduce Social Security taxes for every wage earner in 2011 and extend an expiring program of jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed.


The estimated cost, $858 billion over two years, would be added to already-huge federal deficits.




Van Hollen: No 'done deal' on tax cuts

The measure represents a reach across party lines after two years of political combat in which Republicans wanted a permanent extension of all the tax cuts enacted when George W. Bush was president, while Democrats insisted rates be permitted to rise on incomes over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples.



(Read continues in Link)


House Dems disgruntled

Peter Pan
12-13-2010, 5:10pm
*Breaking*

Tax bill gets 60 votes, set to pass first Senate hurdle.

Final passage of the bill in the Senate is expected on Tuesday



Tax bill gets 60 votes, set to pass first Senate hurdle - Politics - Capitol Hill - msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40637568/ns/politics-capitol_hill/)


WASHINGTON — Legislation to avert a Jan. 1 increase in income tax rates has gained 60 votes in the Senate, the level needed to advance toward a final vote.

The roll call is continuing, and the test vote is not final.
But the bipartisan show of support is a strong indication the measure will be passed and sent to the House, possibly as early as Tuesday.


The bill provide a two-year reprieve in the tax increases that are scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1 at all income levels.

It also reduces Social Security taxes for every wage earner in 2011 and extends an expiring program of jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed.

The bill would provide a two-year reprieve in the tax increases scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1 at all income levels, reduce Social Security taxes for every wage earner in 2011 and extend an expiring program of jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed.


The estimated cost, $858 billion over two years, would be added to already-huge federal deficits.




Van Hollen: No 'done deal' on tax cuts

The measure represents a reach across party lines after two years of political combat in which Republicans wanted a permanent extension of all the tax cuts enacted when George W. Bush was president, while Democrats insisted rates be permitted to rise on incomes over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples.



(Read continues in Link)


House Dems disgruntled


Good deal for all Americans, except congress has to stop spending more than they take in after all it is my money to spend not yours or anyone else.

Yes I am Taxed Enough Already

Exotix
12-13-2010, 5:20pm
Good deal for all Americans, except congress has to stop spending more than they take in after all it is my money to spend not yours or anyone else.

Yes I am Taxed Enough Already

No prob ... in about 6 months when unemployment jumps because the *new* Bush Tax Cuts didn't create the jobs as per dictum of the (R) *Better Solutions* and *Pledge to America* and *Contract on America* ... they will proceed to slash garbage pick-up, police & fire, USPS etc. in addition to Social Security, Medicaid/Medicaire, Food Stamps and any and all other entitlements ... because they will reverse previous Bush policy ... and allow me to quote from Cheney ~ *Defcits don't Matter* ...

But you will still be taxed enough already for the War Machine and (R) salaries ... good luck with your trashed lined stinky neighborhood ...


http://i56.tinypic.com/m97nfc.jpg

Kneel 8250
12-14-2010, 11:31am
No prob ... in about 6 months when unemployment jumps because the *new* Bush Tax Cuts didn't create the jobs as per dictum of the (R) *Better Solutions* and *Pledge to America* and *Contract on America* ... they will proceed to slash garbage pick-up, police & fire, USPS etc. in addition to Social Security, Medicaid/Medicaire, Food Stamps and any and all other entitlements ... because they will reverse previous Bush policy ... and allow me to quote from Cheney ~ *Defcits don't Matter* ...

But you will still be taxed enough already for the War Machine and (R) salaries ... good luck with your trashed lined stinky neighborhood ...


http://i56.tinypic.com/m97nfc.jpg


Most motivated people will get out of their own way and take their own rubbish to the tip so it wont ever become a problem like in 3rd World countries. :D

Have you seen the Social Security lines now??????? OMG !!!! I was shocked having never been in one before.

Exotix
12-15-2010, 2:10pm
NBC/WSJ poll: Nearly 60% approve of tax deal.

First Read - NBC/WSJ poll: Nearly 60% approve of tax deal (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/12/15/5654897-nbcwsj-poll-nearly-60-approve-of-tax-deal)


Senate passes package extending Bush tax cuts.

White House-GOP compromise expected to pass in House, despite Dems' opposition


Senate passes package extending Bush tax cuts - Politics - Capitol Hill - msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40675581/ns/politics-capitol_hill/)


WASHINGTON — The Senate Wednesday overwhelmingly passed a sweeping tax package that would save millions of Americans thousands of dollars in higher taxes while also reducing their Social Security taxes and extending jobless benefits.

The $858 billion package now goes to the House, where many Democrats are unhappy with a provision that allows estates as large as $10 million to pass to heirs tax-free.

Democratic leaders, however, say they expect the bill to ultimately pass and become law.

(Read continues in Link)



I can't wait to see what the *Eliminate the Govt.* Tea Bag Palin-ite Beckerhead Rushbots have to say about adding another $800,000,000,000 + to the deficit ...

Wait, do they pay Taxes ?


:skep:



Video inside: Obama 'convinced' tax cut plan will help middle class

http://i51.tinypic.com/2myvtoi.jpg

ChasC5
12-15-2010, 4:00pm
One poll. :yawn:

More to come ... :D so don't get pissed if it dosn't go your way.

Exotix
12-15-2010, 4:24pm
More to come ... :D so don't get pissed if it dosn't go your way.

No prob ... he'll post up a SeaFive Rasmussen Poll and proclaim *correct* ... (problem is ... they're in Bohner crying mode right now because it makes Obama look good .. )


http://i56.tinypic.com/23igch1.jpg

Exotix
12-15-2010, 4:42pm
Nov 2, 2010. Who's been crying cause of the butt whoopin' they got?
Oh yea, that would be you and your liberal dorks. :rofl:

Should be no problem then for the GOP going into 2012 ... unemployment will be down to it's normal 4% and both the Federal & National Debt will be cut in half because of the revenues generated from a healthy and happy explosive economy ... heck I might even cry with Bohner when Palin is elected because she gets the credit ...

Yeah uh huh ... http://i52.tinypic.com/ngpu2w.gif

Tinkerbell in Texas
12-15-2010, 4:57pm
Should be no problem then for the GOP going into 2012 ... unemployment will be down to it's normal 4% and both the Federal & National Debt will be cut in half because of the revenues generated from a healthy and happy explosive economy ... heck I might even cry with Bohner when Palin is elected because she gets the credit ...

Yeah uh huh ... http://i52.tinypic.com/ngpu2w.gif

I need to quote this and save it for posterity. I'll make sure and post it up in 2012 and then laugh hysterically at your prediction. :rofl:

Kneel 8250
12-15-2010, 4:57pm
Yeah uh huh ... http://i52.tinypic.com/ngpu2w.gif

So you agree with Tx Ag????? Cool.


Now you see why I want my apology Exotix.
You owe me for trying to set up something I would NEVER think or say.

Seen you do it before and you will never be able to use that line on me.

Exotix
12-15-2010, 5:08pm
I need to quote this and save it for posterity. I'll make sure and post it up in 2012 and then laugh hysterically at your prediction. :rofl:

So you agree with Tx Ag????? Cool.


Now you see why I want my apology Exotix.
You owe me for trying to set up something I would NEVER think or say.

Seen you do it before and you will never be able to use that line on me.

Save this one too ... upon Nov. 6, 2012 when America is a hegemonic utopia again thanks to the GOP ....

*I will become a conservative again* ...

... because Palin is not Obama who is Bush ...


:skep:

Exotix
12-15-2010, 5:30pm
you mean like the last two cluster years under the Dems? :skep:

No like Bush when I renounced by *real* conservative affiliation upon see'ng this ...


http://politicalscrapbook.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/bush_george_my_pet_goat.jpg