# House Dems pass middle class tax cuts



## Ravi (Dec 2, 2010)

Using a wily procedural maneuver to tie Republican hands, House  Democrats managed to pass, by a vote of 234-188, legislation that will  allow the Bush tax cuts benefiting only the wealthiest Americans to  expire.
  Democrats were not united on the issue. Twenty voted with Republicans  to kill the tax cut bill, as they hold out for extending additional  cuts to wealthy Americans -- though 3 Republicans, including Reps. Ron  Paul (TX) and Walter Jones (NC) voted for the tax cut extensions.  However the outcome will (and was designed to) allow Democrats to draw  distinctions between themselves and Republicans during the 2012 election  cycle.


House Dems Pass Only Middle Class Tax Cut Bill | TPMDC


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Dec 2, 2010)

Now.....let's see how long The Senate *sits-on-it**!!!!!*

​


----------



## GHook93 (Dec 2, 2010)

Ravi said:


> Using a wily procedural maneuver to tie Republican hands, House  Democrats managed to pass, by a vote of 234-188, legislation that will  allow the Bush tax cuts benefiting only the wealthiest Americans to  expire.
> Democrats were not united on the issue. Twenty voted with Republicans  to kill the tax cut bill, as they hold out for extending additional  cuts to wealthy Americans -- though 3 Republicans, including Reps. Ron  Paul (TX) and Walter Jones (NC) voted for the tax cut extensions.  However the outcome will (and was designed to) allow Democrats to draw  distinctions between themselves and Republicans during the 2012 election  cycle.
> 
> 
> House Dems Pass Only Middle Class Tax Cut Bill | TPMDC



Stupid libtards didn't get enough of a message on election night huh?

It has no chance of getting passed in the Senate! Filbuster anyone? Look they needs to compromise on it and they didn't, now they will feel the wrath! Setting the mark at $1 million, when they keep saying lets raise the tax on millionaires, why then do they toss in people who make $750K under a million? 

Even if $1 mil was too high for them, most Americans (including this one) would accept $750K!


----------



## manifold (Dec 2, 2010)

Ravi beat you to it by a c-hair


----------



## Ravi (Dec 2, 2010)

GHook93 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Using a wily procedural maneuver to tie Republican hands, House  Democrats managed to pass, by a vote of 234-188, legislation that will  allow the Bush tax cuts benefiting only the wealthiest Americans to  expire.
> ...


The vast majority of Americans agree to extending the cuts for the middle class, so yes, I do believe they got the message.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Dec 2, 2010)

Actually, they ok'd not raising taxes on people in the midst of a recession.


----------



## manifold (Dec 2, 2010)

So what exactly was the "wily procedural maneuver?"

Actually taking a vote on it?


----------



## elvis (Dec 2, 2010)

merged.


----------



## Ravi (Dec 2, 2010)

manifold said:


> So what exactly was the "wily procedural maneuver?"
> 
> Actually taking a vote on it?


 Good one.


----------



## GHook93 (Dec 2, 2010)

Ravi said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



I know you don't get it, because you never do! But all the Republicans, WHO PASSED THE ORIGINALLY ONE AGAINST THE DEMOCRATS WISHES, are for tax breaks for the middle class.

HOWEVER, Americans are also against raising taxes on small business, ESPECIALLY THE SUCCESSFUL ones that hire the majority of Americans! Successful small business owners fall between the $250-$750K range!!!

When employment shoots above 10%, *YOU DEMOCRATIC FOOLS WILL BE TO BLAME!!!*


----------



## Ravi (Dec 2, 2010)

GHook93 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...


Most jobs created by small business are created by start ups...this will not affect them whatsoever. Start ups rarely clear $100,000 in *profit*, let alone $250,000. And profit is all they will pay tax on.


----------



## jillian (Dec 2, 2010)

GHook93 said:


> Stupid libtards didn't get enough of a message on election night huh?
> 
> It has no chance of getting passed in the Senate! Filbuster anyone? Look they needs to compromise on it and they didn't, now they will feel the wrath! Setting the mark at $1 million, when they keep saying lets raise the tax on millionaires, why then do they toss in people who make $750K under a million?
> 
> Even if $1 mil was too high for them, most Americans (including this one) would accept $750K!



why do you care if people earning over $250,000 a year go back to paying what they paid during the prosperous years under clinton?

i think the rightwingnuts are getting the wrong  message from the election, which means they're going to get their butts kicked again in two years. 

arrogance does that.


----------



## elvis (Dec 2, 2010)

jillian said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > Stupid libtards didn't get enough of a message on election night huh?
> ...



I'll take clinton and republican control of both houses.  no problem.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 2, 2010)

If tax rates aren't changing, then how can it be called a tax cut?


----------



## elvis (Dec 2, 2010)

Skull Pilot said:


> If tax rates aren't changing, then how can it be called a tax cut?



i think they are extending the cuts that were supposed to expire.


----------



## wyomingpatriot (Dec 2, 2010)

tax cuts should have expired across the board. the country simply cant afford them. if anything, taxes need to be higher.


----------



## Ravi (Dec 2, 2010)

wyomingpatriot said:


> tax cuts should have expired across the board. the country simply cant afford them. if anything, taxes need to be higher.


I agree but the Republicans need to keep their donors happy.


----------



## WillowTree (Dec 2, 2010)

Ravi said:


> Using a wily procedural maneuver to tie Republican hands, House  Democrats managed to pass, by a vote of 234-188, legislation that will  allow the Bush tax cuts benefiting only the wealthiest Americans to  expire.
> Democrats were not united on the issue. Twenty voted with Republicans  to kill the tax cut bill, as they hold out for extending additional  cuts to wealthy Americans -- though 3 Republicans, including Reps. Ron  Paul (TX) and Walter Jones (NC) voted for the tax cut extensions.  However the outcome will (and was designed to) allow Democrats to draw  distinctions between themselves and Republicans during the 2012 election  cycle.
> 
> 
> House Dems Pass Only Middle Class Tax Cut Bill | TPMDC



Making good on campaign promises to SOAK THE RICH! Way to go demonRats.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Dec 2, 2010)

GHook93 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Using a wily procedural maneuver to tie Republican hands, House  Democrats managed to pass, by a vote of 234-188, legislation that will  allow the Bush tax cuts benefiting only the wealthiest Americans to  expire.
> ...


ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo......*'Bagger-logic*; how _intimidating_!! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			






[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wDdWJcpJj0[/ame]​


----------



## elvis (Dec 2, 2010)

wyomingpatriot said:


> tax cuts should have expired across the board. the country simply cant afford them. if anything, taxes need to be higher.



Yeah because raising taxes during economic turmoil is so effective.


----------



## WillowTree (Dec 2, 2010)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Actually, they ok'd not raising taxes on people in the midst of a recession.



As that pollster guy just said Americans aren't okay with class warfare either.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 2, 2010)

jillian said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > Stupid libtards didn't get enough of a message on election night huh?
> ...



Its always easy to support taking more money from other people. 

Your first question can be turned around why do you feel the need for the goverment to take more money from people just because they have more of it than you? Unless the goverment then turns around and writes you a check with it, it really doesnt benefit you directly.


----------



## Dr.House (Dec 2, 2010)

I think all the libs who want to pay high taxes should do so...

Skip a few deductions...  You don't HAVE to take them, you know...

Help out your fellow downtrodden Americans....


----------



## boedicca (Dec 2, 2010)

If successful, all this maneuver will accomplish is to keep unemployment above 9% up to the 2012 elections.

It makes one wonder if Pelosi is actually trying to submarine The One.


----------



## elvis (Dec 2, 2010)

Dr.House said:


> I think all the libs who want to pay high taxes should do so...
> 
> Skip a few deductions...  You don't HAVE to take them, you know...
> 
> Help out your fellow downtrodden Americans....



Yeah, it's patriotic and stuff.


----------



## Common Sense (Dec 2, 2010)

GHook93 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...



the majority of small business owners do not actually take home over $250,000 in income.


PayScale - Owner / Operator, Small Business Salary, Average Salaries
Business Owner Salary Comparison | eHow.com

if you are a successful small business owner and grow your company to a certain size, you no longer qualify as a small business. you end up as a medium size business or small corporation. so this idea that every small business owner is making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year is simply untrue. but no one is having this argument are they....


----------



## Dr.House (Dec 2, 2010)

Democrats!  

Show us your spirit!  Refuse your refund checks!


----------



## jillian (Dec 2, 2010)

martybegan said:


> Its always easy to support taking more money from other people.
> 
> Your first question can be turned around why do you feel the need for the goverment to take more money from people just because they have more of it than you? Unless the goverment then turns around and writes you a check with it, it really doesnt benefit you directly.



you make an assumption that the return of taxes to what they were doesn't affect me and mine. you shouldn't do that just because they don't affect you.

And I'm afraid that I disapproved when baby bush gave his tax breaks to the people who didn't need them and further burdened the middle class.

you could always tell me what you'd cut that doesn't screw people.


----------



## WillowTree (Dec 2, 2010)

Dr.House said:


> I think all the libs who want to pay high taxes should do so...
> 
> Skip a few deductions...  You don't HAVE to take them, you know...
> 
> Help out your fellow downtrodden Americans....



 I think libs fall in that 50% category of "those who pay no federal taxes"


----------



## Misty (Dec 2, 2010)

They did not give a tax cut to the middle class they extended it. 

But this is a common ploy used by liberals to color the truth.


----------



## wyomingpatriot (Dec 2, 2010)

elvis said:


> wyomingpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > tax cuts should have expired across the board. the country simply cant afford them. if anything, taxes need to be higher.
> ...



tax cuts during a downturn have never worked, either. republicans have tried that over and over and over again...didnt work for reagan, didnt work for bush 1 and 2, why will it work this time around?


----------



## boedicca (Dec 2, 2010)

Common Sense said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...




You really don't have much common sense.

The definition of small business include those enterprises with up to 500 employees.  The largest and most successful of these (the ones most likely to create jobs) will be affected.


----------



## Misty (Dec 2, 2010)

wyomingpatriot said:


> tax cuts should have expired across the board. the country simply cant afford them. if anything, taxes need to be higher.



Feel free to pay more taxes than you owe like the Cheney's did. 

They overpaid and said keep the change.


----------



## elvis (Dec 2, 2010)

wyomingpatriot said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > wyomingpatriot said:
> ...



except they aren't cutting any taxes.  they are extending cuts put in place by Bush:  therefore not making taxes go up.


----------



## WillowTree (Dec 2, 2010)

Misty said:


> They did not give a tax cut to the middle class they extended it.
> 
> But this is a common ploy used by liberals to color the truth.



 you see up ^^^^^^ where jIllian said Bush burdened the middle class" and the dems just extended the bush tax cuts for the middle class. course when the rich start shipping their money and their jobs overseas there won't be any middle class so the arguement becomes moot toot.


----------



## jillian (Dec 2, 2010)

WillowTree said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > They did not give a tax cut to the middle class they extended it.
> ...



it would be nice if you actually understood the economics of it.

i think, unfortunately, these things aren't simplistic enough for your little rightwingnut mind. i know they're complicated for people far smarter than i am.

so i can imagine how they tax your shriveled up grey matter.


----------



## wyomingpatriot (Dec 2, 2010)

elvis said:


> wyomingpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



yes thats true. but the logic is the same - more of the same failed policies will inevitably work. if the tax cut extensions are so vital, then why did they fail to turn the recession around? to cut the deficit, congress must reduce significant spending. discretionary spending like dumbshits mcconnel and boehner harp about comprise only about 30% of the budget, at best. but when it comes to real cuts (such as letting bushes policies die out), they fail miserably.


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Dec 2, 2010)

Deep tax cuts for everyone.  Make government take the hit for being irresponsible.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 2, 2010)

jillian said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Its always easy to support taking more money from other people.
> ...



The cuts are the hard question. To me goverment is doing things it was never meant to do, or is at least doing it inefficently. My point is that in our current system people in the higher income brackets technically have taxation without proportionate representation. The majority has the ability if they really wanted to to raise taxes on people over X income to like 90%, and those people basically have no recourse. While to a liberal this sounds like poetic justice and all that is fair in the world, to my view, this is an inherent unfairness. It would almost be more comforting if those who want to raise taxes on the rich only to at least show up at thier houses and rob them at gunpoint, instead of using the goverment to do thier dirty work for them. 

At a certain point it stops being taxation, and starts to be confiscation, soley for the reason of you having more than the other person, and a method to force equality, instead of being what taxation was originally for, to fund the goverment.


----------



## elvis (Dec 2, 2010)

wyomingpatriot said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > wyomingpatriot said:
> ...



they didn't turn the recession around because the crash was so severe.  letting taxes go up, however you do it, will slow the economy more.


----------



## jillian (Dec 2, 2010)

elvis said:


> wyomingpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



i think it might be time to stop using those labels. 10 years ago bush gave these tax gifts to his rich friends. the middle class got a couple of pennies off of their taxes so that the people who fund the campaigns got their payoff. it was never intended to be permanent. it isn't increasing taxes for things to be put back to where they were supposed to be.

but i'm appalled by all the pretend fiscal conservatives who say that unemployment insurance has to be "paid for", but tax cuts, which will cost us billions, don't.

it's kind of a warped argument.


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Dec 2, 2010)

Confiscation?  Shoot, keynesians don't care.  45, 50, 55, 60 percent tax, they can justify any number for the government means over individual liberty.


----------



## WillowTree (Dec 2, 2010)

jillian said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Misty said:
> ...









You think you're smart?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Dec 2, 2010)

Dr.House said:


> Democrats!
> 
> Show us your spirit!  Refuse your refund checks!



Just as soon as you stop using public roads that government built or eating foods that the FDA inspected, or banking at a bank that is federally protected, etc..... You want smaller government.....prove it.


----------



## wyomingpatriot (Dec 2, 2010)

LordBrownTrout said:


> Deep tax cuts for everyone.  Make government take the hit for being irresponsible.



so where are all these magical trillions going to come from to pay for these extensions? we are responsible as a democracy for the government we elect.


----------



## WillowTree (Dec 2, 2010)

LordBrownTrout said:


> Confiscation?  Shoot, keynesians don't care.  45, 50, 55, 60 percent tax, they can justify any number for the government means over individual liberty.



Exactly, the 50% of the mother fuckers who pay no federal tax are salivating at the thought of pissing away the wealth of the wealthy.


----------



## elvis (Dec 2, 2010)

jillian said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > wyomingpatriot said:
> ...



I got more than a few pennies and I'm not one of Bush's friends. 
I am a fiscal conservative, but raising taxes right now in this economy is dangerous in my opinion.  Hoover tried it.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Dec 2, 2010)

WillowTree said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > I think all the libs who want to pay high taxes should do so...
> ...



That includes you since you don't actually have a job. Hypocrite.


----------



## Ravi (Dec 2, 2010)

WillowTree said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> > Confiscation?  Shoot, keynesians don't care.  45, 50, 55, 60 percent tax, they can justify any number for the government means over individual liberty.
> ...


That would be you, right?


----------



## Common Sense (Dec 2, 2010)

boedicca said:


> The definition of small business include those enterprises with up to 500 employees.  The largest and most successful of these (the ones most likely to create jobs) will be affected.



actually this is the government definition of a small business:

500 or fewer employees for most manufacturing and mining industries (a few industries permit up to 750, 1000 or 1,500 employees)

100 or fewer employees for all wholesale trade industries

$6 million per year in sales receipts for most retail and service industries (with some exceptions)

$27.5 million per year in sales receipts for most general & heavy construction industries

$11.5 million per year in sales receipts for all special trade contractors

$0.5 million per year in sales receipts for most agricultural, forestry and fishing industries

What is a Small Business?

so it actually varies. 

the only ones on this list may actually apply to this are general and heavy construction industries, special trade contractors and mining.

nice try tho

Who Makes $250,000 a Year? Not Small Business... | Gather


----------



## WillowTree (Dec 2, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...



Wrong asswipe. I still pay Federal Taxes. Why don't you?


----------



## wyomingpatriot (Dec 2, 2010)

elvis said:


> wyomingpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



theres no proven basis for that. life will go on as it always had by necessity. what are we going to do...shut our businesses down? quit our jobs because we dont like federal income tax being raised 5%? we'll spend less, yes, but thats a good thing. its a fallacy to assume the country will shut down, no one will buy or invest in anything. the citizen will do the same. he will gripe and moan, but his life is no different. the private sector will be just fine. we're in debt. we need to start paying it off, not spending more.


----------



## WillowTree (Dec 2, 2010)

ravi said:


> willowtree said:
> 
> 
> > lordbrowntrout said:
> ...



wrong!


----------



## RDD_1210 (Dec 2, 2010)

WillowTree said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



I want everything for free and to be given to me. Is that what you want to hear?

In reality, I work hard at my JOB. Do you??


----------



## RDD_1210 (Dec 2, 2010)

Misty said:


> They did not give a tax cut to the middle class they extended it.
> 
> But this is a common ploy used by liberals to color the truth.



And they're not raising anyone's taxes, they're letting the Bush tax cuts expire. Common ploy used by cons to color the truth.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 2, 2010)

wyomingpatriot said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > wyomingpatriot said:
> ...





It's the SPENDING STUPID:







Obama has increased the size of Federal Outlays as a % of GDP by 25% in less than two years.  

We are not Under Taxed.  The government spends Too Much Money, largely on crap.


----------



## elvis (Dec 2, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > They did not give a tax cut to the middle class they extended it.
> ...




If tax cuts expire, taxes go up.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Dec 2, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > They did not give a tax cut to the middle class they extended it.
> ...



How dumb are you?  If taxes go up, then they are raised. What Topsy-turvy world are you living on Moonbeam?


----------



## elvis (Dec 2, 2010)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Misty said:
> ...



what's your definition of raise?


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 2, 2010)

WillowTree said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Using a wily procedural maneuver to tie Republican hands, House  Democrats managed to pass, by a vote of 234-188, legislation that will  allow the Bush tax cuts benefiting only the wealthiest Americans to  expire.
> ...


_"You're soaking in it"_

Yeah, they're soaked about this much:


----------



## boedicca (Dec 2, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > They did not give a tax cut to the middle class they extended it.
> ...





Riddle me this, if the tax cuts expire, will people be taxed at a higher rate than they did this year?

If so, then that's a tax increase, bub.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Dec 2, 2010)

elvis said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Misty said:
> ...



Because that's what Republicans planned. If Dems extend the breaks, they cut taxes from what they were scheduled to be. See how this game works? Semantics, gotta love it.


----------



## WillowTree (Dec 2, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Until I retired. So you think no one should retire? Good thinking. I want you to keep working hard. I need my gubbmint checks.


----------



## elvis (Dec 2, 2010)

boedicca said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Misty said:
> ...



what's your definition of increase?


----------



## Ravi (Dec 2, 2010)

Why do republicans  hate the middle class?


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Dec 2, 2010)

Taxes go up, but they are not raised.   Huh?


----------



## WillowTree (Dec 2, 2010)

boedicca said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Misty said:
> ...



The taxes on the working middle class go up regardless of the extensions. Every working person who get assistance in meeting the cost of their insurance by the companies who employee them will be taxed on that assistance as if it were salary.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 2, 2010)

Dr.House said:


> Democrats!
> 
> Show us your spirit!  Refuse your refund checks!


No thanks.  We're tired of paying your share.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Dec 2, 2010)

boedicca said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Misty said:
> ...



Riddle me this, if nothing happens, do taxes go up as was intended when the cuts were first put in to place? If so, then extending the breaks is a CUT over what was originally planned. You Cons sure do love the Semantics games.


----------



## elvis (Dec 2, 2010)

Ravi said:


> Why do republicans  hate the middle class?



because we prefer mathematics and physics to literature.  math being at 8, physics at 10, and literature at 9.


----------



## WillowTree (Dec 2, 2010)

Ravi said:


> Why do republicans  hate the middle class?



Better question. why do libtards hate the rich? answer penis envy and a drive to punish success.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Dec 2, 2010)

WillowTree said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Good thing that doesn't have any affect on you, since you would need to actually have a job.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 2, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...





It's not what the GOP planned - it's the compromise they had to make with the Dems to get any tax cuts passed whatsoever.

A little knowledge of history wouldn't fry your brain...well, in your case, maybe it would.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Dec 2, 2010)

elvis said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



I don't have one, but the dictionary does -

_to move to a higher position; lift up; elevate._

Good Lord.


----------



## jillian (Dec 2, 2010)

WillowTree said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > I think all the libs who want to pay high taxes should do so...
> ...



you nutbars crack me up. first you say we're the elites... then you say we don't pay federal taxes.


----------



## Ravi (Dec 2, 2010)

WillowTree said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Why do republicans  hate the middle class?
> ...


In reality, this vote also gives the rich a tax cut...they will also pay less money on the first $250,000 they earn.

So I should have asked, why do republicans hate Americans?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Dec 2, 2010)

WillowTree said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



Hypocrite.


----------



## WillowTree (Dec 2, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...





I don't need a job. I'm retired. And you're a moron.   but that's okay, we need some morons for balance.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Dec 2, 2010)

jillian said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...



I would never say _you _were elite.


----------



## WillowTree (Dec 2, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



That's RETIRED hypocrite. Thank You Vewy Much.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 2, 2010)

wyomingpatriot said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > wyomingpatriot said:
> ...



I'm convinced that they do not care if it works.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Dec 2, 2010)

jillian said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...



It's whatever fits their agenda of the day that they get from Fox News.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Dec 2, 2010)

I think all the libs on this board should get out their checkbooks and start writing checks to the Feds.  Like now.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Dec 2, 2010)

WillowTree said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



No, you're still working very hard at the hypocrisy. Too bad you can't actually get paid for it.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Dec 2, 2010)

GHook93 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...


.....And, you *'Baggers* *LONG-AGO* breached the *FOOL-perimeter*. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




> *That's 750,000 small businesses in America, the most productive, the ones that are the most successful, getting hit by a tax increase on top of everything else that's happened to them in the last 18 months of this administration,* said Senate Minority Leader *Mitch McConnell* (R-KY). But *McConnells number is only accurate if you take an incredibly expansive view of what constitutes a small business.*
> 
> *Included in that 750,000 is the Bechtel Corporation*, the largest engineering firm in the country. It is the fifth-largest privately owned company in the United States, posting gross revenue in 2008 of $31.4 billion. The number also includes the *Wall Street buyout firm Kohlberg, Kravis and Roberts*, which has more than $54 billion in assets and 14 offices around the globe. The auditing firm *PricewaterhouseCoopers*, which has operations in more than 150 countries, *fits the bill as well*.
> 
> *The reason conservatives cite these companies as small businesses is that they are pass-through entities*, meaning that *instead* of paying the corporate income tax, they *pass-through their earnings to individual owners*, who claim the profits on their personal income tax returns. There are *legitimate reasons for incorporating* in this fashion, but *it is also a way for large companies to avoid taxes.*"



*Stupid 'Baggers*......


----------



## WillowTree (Dec 2, 2010)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



Ask her again how many of obie wan kinow nuttings appointee's didn't pay their taxes.... go ahead,, I double dog dare ya..


----------



## WillowTree (Dec 2, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



I get paid vewy well thank you. you notice I don't have to work don't ya??


----------



## Ravi (Dec 2, 2010)

WillowTree said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


Sarah Palin falls in that boat.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Dec 2, 2010)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> I think all the libs on this board should get out their checkbooks and start writing checks to the Feds.  Like now.



Stop driving on highways, eating government inspected food, using federally protected banks, etc....I mean you are for smaller government, how about you show us you're serious.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Dec 2, 2010)

WillowTree said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Oh.. she knows.  And then they claim stupidity.  _I didn't know I had to pay taxes on my income._HUH?


----------



## AmericanFirst (Dec 2, 2010)

Pelosi didn't get the message. We do not like her, she is still an idiot. Bye Bye


----------



## elvis (Dec 2, 2010)

Ravi said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Soggy in NOLA said:
> ...



she's an appointee?


----------



## WillowTree (Dec 2, 2010)

Ravi said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Soggy in NOLA said:
> ...



Oh really? What did obie wan no nutting appoint Sarah Palin to?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Dec 2, 2010)

WillowTree said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



Oh I noticed, collecting that government cheese seems to work well for you. Goes back to the whole hypocrisy thing. Thanks for reinforcing though.


----------



## WillowTree (Dec 2, 2010)

elvis said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



stop typing so fast wouldya?


----------



## Ravi (Dec 2, 2010)

elvis said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...


No, she avoided paying taxes.

She should now be thankful that the first $250,000 of her earnings will be taxed at the current lower rate...well, not really. Of course the senate repubs will filibuster this bill.


----------



## WillowTree (Dec 2, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



yes, thank you, I feel no shame for unlike you I paid my dues into the system. Nay,, was forced to do it. So stick it up your ass you whiney little retard.


----------



## elvis (Dec 2, 2010)

Ravi said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



because they want ALL the cuts?


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 2, 2010)

elvis said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Misty said:
> ...


Yup.  And when your coupon for $1.00 off Maxwell House expires, I guess you can argue that the price of coffee went up, too.

Bravo!


----------



## Ravi (Dec 2, 2010)

elvis said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...


Yep...they'd rather have gazillion dollar deficits than upset their donors.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Dec 2, 2010)

jillian said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > Stupid libtards didn't get enough of a message on election night huh?
> ...


We didn't get the wrong message, you leftwing idiots are just too stupid to see the truth in front of your eyes.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Dec 2, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



_Goverment cheese?_  Oh this guy's gonna blow....

This is hillarious.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Dec 2, 2010)

WillowTree said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



LOL, "whiney little retard"? Blatant insults were only a matter of time when dealing with you. Stay classy.


----------



## elvis (Dec 2, 2010)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



Yeah, he resembles Chris.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Dec 2, 2010)

elvis said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > If tax rates aren't changing, then how can it be called a tax cut?
> ...


You *THINK??!!!!* 

How could a Moderator *NOT** know this?????*






*Let The Bush Tax Cuts On The Wealthy Expire*


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Dec 2, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



DING! DING! DING!

Dumbfuck post of the day goes to you sir!

Did you really make that analogy?  Seriously?  Equating tax increases with expired coffee coupons?  And who the hell drinks Maxwell House?


----------



## AmericanFirst (Dec 2, 2010)

wyomingpatriot said:


> tax cuts should have expired across the board. the country simply cant afford them. if anything, taxes need to be higher.


socialist!!!


----------



## RDD_1210 (Dec 2, 2010)

elvis said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Ouch?


----------



## elvis (Dec 2, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > Soggy in NOLA said:
> ...



your posts resemble his posts.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Dec 2, 2010)

Probably another asshat who like to argue what the meaning of _is _is.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Dec 2, 2010)

AmericanFirst said:


> wyomingpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > tax cuts should have expired across the board. the country simply cant afford them. if anything, taxes need to be higher.
> ...



No, just a clueless fucktard.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Dec 2, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > I think all the libs on this board should get out their checkbooks and start writing checks to the Feds.  Like now.
> ...



Funny how you skipped this. Must be nice to ignore posts you have no answer to.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Dec 2, 2010)

elvis said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



Thanks?


----------



## elvis (Dec 2, 2010)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



partisan hackery at its finest, isn't it?


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Dec 2, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Soggy in NOLA said:
> ...



No.  It is just so insanely stupid that I decided to not waste time on it.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Dec 2, 2010)

wyomingpatriot said:


> tax cuts should have expired across the board. the country simply cant afford them.













wyomingpatriot said:


> if anything, taxes need to be higher.


Welllllllllllllllllllllllll......let's not lose-control, there.

The original-rates (before *BUSHCO's* cuts), *seemed to work, well-enough*, for us!!!​


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Dec 2, 2010)

elvis said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Oh, it's well beyond that....  his prior post was that since people don;t want  to pay more taxes, they should stop eating Gov't inspected food, driving on roads and putting money in banks.

This guy's nuts.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Dec 2, 2010)

I'll better him.. since he loves gov't so much, he should go get a TSA groping every day.  Hell, three times a day.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 2, 2010)

I'd like to see one of the Tax Increase Advocates explain why it is necessary to increase the absolute dollars the Feds spend by near 30% over a 3 year period.  Total Federal Outlays were $2.8T in 2007 - they are projected to be $3.7T this year.

Why?   The government claims that inflation is low, interest rates are low, the wars were already baked into the 2007 outlays.  What possible economic justification is there for ramping up so much spending so quickly?


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Dec 2, 2010)

Ravi said:


> wyomingpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > tax cuts should have expired across the board. the country simply cant afford them. if anything, taxes need to be higher.
> ...


I remember a _wizened, ol' sage_ (one time), saying....*FUCK THEIR DONORS!!!!*....or, *something* like that..... ​


----------



## elvis (Dec 2, 2010)

boedicca said:


> I'd like to see one of the Tax Increase Advocates explain why it is necessary to increase the absolute dollars the Feds spend by near 30% over a 3 year period.  Total Federal Outlays were $2.8T in 2007 - they are projected to be $3.7T this year.
> 
> Why?   The government claims that inflation is low, interest rates are low, the wars were already baked into the 2007 outlays.  What possible economic justification is there for ramping up so much spending so quickly?



It's the Keynesian model on steroids.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 2, 2010)

elvis said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


I won't waste my time with the soggy idiot, but I'll ask you:  what's wrong with the analogy?


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 2, 2010)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > Soggy in NOLA said:
> ...


That wasn't me, moron.


----------



## elvis (Dec 2, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > Soggy in NOLA said:
> ...



If i didn't use the coupon, then yes the price of my coffee goes up. there is no coupon in this tax cut issue.


----------



## WillowTree (Dec 2, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



works for me. now go pay your taxes.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Dec 2, 2010)

WillowTree said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Using a wily procedural maneuver to tie Republican hands, House  Democrats managed to pass, by a vote of 234-188, legislation that will  allow the Bush tax cuts benefiting only the wealthiest Americans to  expire.
> ...


They appear to be managing, well-enough, on their own......






​


----------



## Varth Dader (Dec 2, 2010)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> DING! DING! DING!
> 
> Dumbfuck post of the day goes to you sir!
> 
> Did you really make that analogy?  Seriously?  Equating tax increases with expired coffee coupons?  And who the hell drinks Maxwell House?



If your boss tells you that you will get a bonus every year for and only for the next 5 years, is he cutting your salary when he choses not to give you one in year 6?


----------



## WillowTree (Dec 2, 2010)

Varth Dader said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > DING! DING! DING!
> ...



No bonus? Less salary! go figure!


----------



## boedicca (Dec 2, 2010)

elvis said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > I'd like to see one of the Tax Increase Advocates explain why it is necessary to increase the absolute dollars the Feds spend by near 30% over a 3 year period.  Total Federal Outlays were $2.8T in 2007 - they are projected to be $3.7T this year.
> ...





Yeah.  And we all know what Too Much Steroid do to a guy's complexion and gonads.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 2, 2010)

Varth Dader said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > DING! DING! DING!
> ...





Poor analogy.

The Government is not Our Boss.  It is not paying our salary.  It is taking away part of the income we earn.


----------



## 8537 (Dec 2, 2010)

boedicca said:


> Common Sense said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...



Almost every business with anywhere near 50 employees is no longer having profits reported as personal income.


----------



## daveman (Dec 2, 2010)

Ravi said:


> Using a wily procedural maneuver to tie Republican hands, House  Democrats managed to pass, by a vote of 234-188, legislation that will  allow the Bush tax cuts benefiting only the wealthiest Americans to  expire.
> Democrats were not united on the issue. Twenty voted with Republicans  to kill the tax cut bill, as they hold out for extending additional  cuts to wealthy Americans -- though 3 Republicans, including Reps. Ron  Paul (TX) and Walter Jones (NC) voted for the tax cut extensions.  However the outcome will (and was designed to) allow Democrats to draw  distinctions between themselves and Republicans during the 2012 election  cycle.
> 
> 
> House Dems Pass Only Middle Class Tax Cut Bill | TPMDC


Wait a minute...I thought it was irresponsible to lower taxes in this economy.  Or is it irresponsible only when the GOP does it...?

When you bozos figure out what you think, let me know, mmmkay?


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Dec 2, 2010)

elvis said:


> wyomingpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > tax cuts should have expired across the board. the country simply cant afford them. if anything, taxes need to be higher.
> ...


After a *BUSH* has been in the Oval Office.....*ya' gotta DO, what ya' GOTTA DO!!!!!!*

(You *"conservatives"* surely are *History*-_challenged_*!!!!!!*  )​


----------



## boedicca (Dec 2, 2010)

8537 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Common Sense said:
> ...




Uh.  Wrong.  A lot of small businesses are Subchapter S corporations, with profits taxed at the individual rate when passed to shareholders.


----------



## Varth Dader (Dec 2, 2010)

WillowTree said:


> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> > Soggy in NOLA said:
> ...



So you would say he is cutting your salary?

Even if the bonus was clearly meant to be temporary.

Great logic: pass something temporary and then complain that it's not permanent.

Life is not like a basket of bottomless tostada chips at Chili's -- Since you don't like coffee.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 2, 2010)

WillowTree said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > I think all the libs who want to pay high taxes should do so...
> ...


Yet somehow Libs on the average make more money than CON$, so therefore for you to be correct, Libs must also dominate the very highest income earners to offset the bottom 50%. This explains why CON$ hate themselves so much, they see themselves stuck in their own mediocrity!


----------



## daveman (Dec 2, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Which THE MAN is it keeping you down?


----------



## Varth Dader (Dec 2, 2010)

boedicca said:


> Poor analogy.
> 
> The Government is not Our Boss.  It is not paying our salary.  It is taking away part of the income we earn.



I'm asking you if you think you are getting a pay cut at year 6.

Go ahead, you can say you do. A lot of people are into the "Me! Me! Me!" approach.


----------



## 8537 (Dec 2, 2010)

boedicca said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...


Uh, you're wrong.  Indeed, a lot of small businesses are S corps.

But most businesses with almost 500 employees are most certainly not S-corps.  If you read what I wrote, you'd see I made that distinction for you.


----------



## WillowTree (Dec 2, 2010)

Varth Dader said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Varth Dader said:
> ...



Actually, moron, I didn't say jack shit about not liking coffee.


----------



## daveman (Dec 2, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> wyomingpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



And yet, here you are, cheering the same thing when it's done by Democrats.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Dec 2, 2010)

martybegan said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...


....And, who knows that, *better*, than *"conservative"*-polticos & their *bud$* in the mortgage-industry*??!!!!* 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2iHksmF7m4&feature=related[/ame]

​


----------



## boedicca (Dec 2, 2010)

Varth Dader said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Poor analogy.
> ...




You clearly have never had a real incentive compensation pay arrangement.

Setting aside your offensive comment (and this will be the last time I ever respond to one of your posts which contains such):

It would depend upon the terms of the bonus.  If it were individual performance based and part of my comp package, and I performed at the same level, then it would feel like a pay cut.  If the bonus were purely profit sharing based, and the nonpayment was due to a fall off in business (i.e., recession) then that is the deal and I shouldn't have counted on the bonus in the first place as a guaranteed thing.


----------



## Varth Dader (Dec 2, 2010)

WillowTree said:


> Actually, moron, I didn't say jack shit about not liking coffee.



I see you have a great sense of humor.

I meant you didn't like Maxwell house coffee.

And good analogies.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 2, 2010)

8537 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...





Then prove it.


----------



## daveman (Dec 2, 2010)

boedicca said:


> I'd like to see one of the Tax Increase Advocates explain why it is necessary to increase the absolute dollars the Feds spend by near 30% over a 3 year period.  Total Federal Outlays were $2.8T in 2007 - they are projected to be $3.7T this year.
> 
> Why?   The government claims that inflation is low, interest rates are low, the wars were already baked into the 2007 outlays.  What possible economic justification is there for ramping up so much spending so quickly?


"We have to spend like crazy before we're kicked out!"


----------



## Zander (Dec 2, 2010)

Calling the extension of the existing rates a "tax cut" is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.


----------



## Varth Dader (Dec 2, 2010)

boedicca said:


> You clearly have never had a real incentive compensation pay arrangement.
> 
> Setting aside your offensive comment (and this will be the last time I ever respond to one of your posts which contains such):
> 
> It would depend upon the terms of the bonus.  If it were individual performance based and part of my comp package, and I performed at the same level, then it would feel like a pay cut.  If the bonus were purely profit sharing based, and the nonpayment was due to a fall off in business (i.e., recession) then that is the deal and I shouldn't have counted on the bonus in the first place as a guaranteed thing.



Even if that bonus was part of your compensation package, if it was only for a set period of time, it would be really unfair to consider it lapsing some kind of cut.

Here the tax cuts that were passed were temporary in nature because they had an end date. The only guarantee was that, unless renewed, they would come to an end.

On day 1 we knew that there tax cuts would come to expire. I know that the end result is that the tax rate will be higher on Jan 1, but it's really disingenuous, imho, to argue that it is a tax hike.


----------



## Varth Dader (Dec 2, 2010)

Zander said:


> Calling the extension of the existing rates a "tax cut" is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.



It's an extension, temporary or permanent, of the last tax cuts.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Dec 2, 2010)

boedicca said:


> If successful, all this maneuver will accomplish is to keep unemployment above 9% up to the 2012 elections.​





> *"Clearly, this is a job-killer in the short-run. The impact on job creation is going to be devastating."* - *Rep. Dick Armey*, (Republican, Texas)
> 
> *"The tax increase willlead to a recessionand will actually increase the deficit."* - *Rep. Newt Gingrich* (Republican, Georgia)
> 
> ...


----------



## boedicca (Dec 2, 2010)

Varth Dader said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > You clearly have never had a real incentive compensation pay arrangement.
> ...





Fine.  If you wish to think of yourself as an Employee of the Government whose pay is at the whim of bureaucrats, by all means do.

I disagree with your premise.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 2, 2010)

elvis said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Why do republicans  hate the middle class?
> ...


Shouldn't that be "fuzzy math" at 10?


----------



## Common Sense (Dec 2, 2010)

daveman said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > I'd like to see one of the Tax Increase Advocates explain why it is necessary to increase the absolute dollars the Feds spend by near 30% over a 3 year period.  Total Federal Outlays were $2.8T in 2007 - they are projected to be $3.7T this year.
> ...



more details on the repubs running up the debt

Here are the only OFFICAL budget numbers from the CBO - (United States Congressional Budget Office):

2000 - 236 Billion SURPLUS under Clinton
2001 - 128 Billion SURPLUS under Clinton
2002 - 158 Billion deficit under Bush with republican congress
2003 - 378 Billion deficit under Bush with republican congress
2004 - 413 Billion deficit under Bush with republican congress
2005 - 318 Billion deficit under Bush with republican congress
2006 - 248 Billion deficit under Bush with republican congress
2007 - 161 Billion deficit under Bush with republican congress
2008 - 459 Billion deficit under Bush with Dem congress
2009 - 1.4 Trillion deficit under Obama/Bush - (Bush was pres the first 4 months of this budget which includes his 700 billion in bailouts and the expected 600 billion deficit which was most of the 1.4 trillion)

Source : CBO Historical Budget Data
http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/historicaltables.pdf


Reagan increased our debt an average of 24% yearly...he tripled it from 934B to 2.6T (189%)
Bush increased our debt an average of 11% yearly...he doubled it from 5.7 to 10.6 trillion (91%)
Obama increased our debt 16% in his first year from 10.6 to 12.3 trillion (to stop a great depression)

(Data from the US Treasury Bureau of Public Debt - http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway)

FACTS SHOW THAT REPUBLICANS DO THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THEY CLAIM...THEY CREATE RECORD DEFICITS AND RECORD DEBTS AND BLAME IT ON DEMOCRATS
1 month ago Report Abuse

Bush left a 1.2 trillion deficit for Obama.

(Source 2: Congressional Budget Office - Annual Budget and Economic Report and testimony before Congress on Jan 8, 2009) (Declares a 1.2 trillion deficit for fiscal year 2009 ---2 weeks before obama takes office)
http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9958/01-08-Outlook_Testimony.pdf

blaming Obama doesnt change the facts.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Dec 2, 2010)

wyomingpatriot said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > wyomingpatriot said:
> ...



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## boedicca (Dec 2, 2010)

If the Bush deficits are so bad, what does that make the much larger Obama deficits?


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 2, 2010)

WillowTree said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Why do republicans  hate the middle class?
> ...


But the Libs ARE the rich!!! 
YOU, trapped in your own MEDIOCRITY, sound envious of those both above and below you.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Dec 2, 2010)

boedicca said:


> Common Sense said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...



*BULLSHIT**!!!!!!*

​


----------



## Varth Dader (Dec 2, 2010)

boedicca said:


> If the Bush deficits are so bad, what does that make the much larger Obama deficits?



Makes them terrible. Which is one good reason why not extend the tax cuts for the richest.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Dec 2, 2010)

elvis said:


> wyomingpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...


Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...... ​


> *"Not only was the entire national deficit eliminated after raising taxes on the wealthy in 1993, but the economy grew so fast for the remainder of the decade that many conservative economists thought that the Fed should raise the prime interest rate in order to slow it down."*



Whatta shame all o' you *"conservative"-neophytes* are *MUCH TOO-YOUNG* to remember the '90s economy.

​


----------



## boedicca (Dec 2, 2010)

Varth Dader said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > If the Bush deficits are so bad, what does that make the much larger Obama deficits?
> ...





This qualifies for the Heartbreak of Economic Illiteracy Certificate with a Pea Green With Envy Star for Class Warfare.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Dec 2, 2010)

How typical.

The Moderatin'-*CHUMPS* moved this thread outta *Politics*....after watchin' their Brethren-*'Baggers* takin' a serious ass-whuppin'.

​


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Dec 2, 2010)

wyomingpatriot said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> > Deep tax cuts for everyone.  Make government take the hit for being irresponsible.
> ...



There's no magic.  Our current outlays FY2010 are 3.5T.  Our current receipts FY 2010 are 2.3T.  Cut outlays to 2T, start paying off the current 14T hole that we're in at 300 to 500 billion a year.  This isn't difficult.  We make govt pay for their irresponsibility and have them do without.


----------



## Trajan (Dec 2, 2010)

elvis said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...



interesting isn't it? we didn't know how good we had it then.


----------



## daveman (Dec 2, 2010)

Common Sense said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...


You mean like the fact it was the Democratic-controlled Congress who passed the spending bills (with Senator Obama's vote, unless he voted "present") that left Obama a 1.2 trillion deficit?


----------



## WillowTree (Dec 2, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...





nice try asswipe but it's not me you hear bellowing to "soak the rich". no no no babe, it's not me you're looking for babe.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 2, 2010)

boedicca said:


> If the Bush deficits are so bad, what does that make the* much larger* Obama deficits?


Slightly SMALLER!!!

Obama's first deficit was less than Bush's last!!!

The Washington Monthly

The $1.294 trillion shortfall is smaller than last year's total; it's slightly lower than the deficit President Obama inherited from his predecessor


----------



## daveman (Dec 2, 2010)

boedicca said:


> If the Bush deficits are so bad, what does that make the much larger Obama deficits?


It's simple.  Bush's deficits are bad.  Obama's deficits are good.

Right, USMB lefties?


----------



## Trajan (Dec 2, 2010)

Common Sense said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



uhm hello, having a surplus don't mean there wasn't a deficit, you know that right? You can have a surplus while still retaining Billions even trillions in debt.

and as far as blame goes,  obama increased the deficit and debt. did he not? and please no pejorative he saved us from a depression gig okay?


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 2, 2010)

WillowTree said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...


No you are bellowing "the Libs want to soak the Libs!"


----------



## Trajan (Dec 2, 2010)

and for the semantically challenged- if the cuts expire the gov. takes in more money as we give up more, if the cuts stay, its a wash.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 2, 2010)

The Semantically Challenged combine that deficiency with Economic Illiteracy.  High tax rates do not increase tax receipts.

For the past few decades, no matter what the top marginal rates were, total tax receipts as a percent of GDP settled around 19%.


----------



## Trajan (Dec 2, 2010)

boedicca said:


> The Semantically Challenged combine that deficiency with Economic Illiteracy.  High tax rates do not increase tax receipts.
> 
> For the past few decades, no matter what the top marginal rates were, total tax receipts as a percent of GDP settled around 19%.



you'll spook'em....

they cannot figure out that 19% of a smaller pie equals......less money but hey, we're nuts.


----------



## WillowTree (Dec 2, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Link?


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 2, 2010)

elvis said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...


A coupon is a price reduction for a set amount of time, with an expiration date.

The bush tax cuts are a tax price reduction for a set amount of time, with an expiration date.

What part do you need help understanding?


----------



## WillowTree (Dec 2, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



so when they expire taxes go up.. we understand perfectly,


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 2, 2010)

daveman said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Using a wily procedural maneuver to tie Republican hands, House  Democrats managed to pass, by a vote of 234-188, legislation that will  allow the Bush tax cuts benefiting only the wealthiest Americans to  expire.
> ...


I agree.  They should all expire.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 2, 2010)

Trajan said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > The Semantically Challenged combine that deficiency with Economic Illiteracy.  High tax rates do not increase tax receipts.
> ...




That's the stupid game Congress plays. The CBO is instructed to do analysis which assumes that tax rates don't alter behavior, so that they can "balance the budget" or justify increased spending when they also raise taxes.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 2, 2010)

boedicca said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



The vast majority of small businesses do not have shareholders.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 2, 2010)

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > wyomingpatriot said:
> ...



That is a WONDERFUL talking point!  Really one of your best!


----------



## Sallow (Dec 2, 2010)

Trajan said:


> Common Sense said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Well yeah..why bother with the truth.

The conservative fantasy is so much mo' bettah!


----------



## Trajan (Dec 2, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > Common Sense said:
> ...



why did you bother quoting me if you didn't absorb what I said? I assume...thats assume you read it....?


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 2, 2010)

boedicca said:


> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



Oh come now.  I've said much worse to you and you still reply to me.  



> It would depend upon the terms of the bonus.  If it were individual performance based and part of my comp package, and I performed at the same level, then it would feel like a pay cut.  If the bonus were purely profit sharing based, and the nonpayment was due to a fall off in business (i.e., recession) then that is the deal and I shouldn't have counted on the bonus in the first place as a guaranteed thing.



Blah, blah, blah.  You are trying to rewrite Varth Dader's question instead of plainly answering it.

Try again:



Varth Dader said:


> If your boss tells you that you will get a  bonus every year for and only for the next 5 years, is he cutting your  salary when he choses not to give you one in year 6?


----------



## Sallow (Dec 2, 2010)

Trajan said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



I did..you answered your own question..and then re-submitted it.

I mean..seriously..what answer are you expecting? 

What happened at the end of the Bush administration was a disaster..with no good solutions. You basically had a bad solution..and a worse solution.

The bad solution was chosen.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 2, 2010)

WillowTree said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...


Yes.  They go up.  Deal with it.  A free society isn't free.


----------



## daveman (Dec 2, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


What's keeping you from sending more of your money to the government?

Hint:  Nothing.


----------



## daveman (Dec 2, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


Not my fault you've made yourself look like a hypocritical idiot.


----------



## WillowTree (Dec 2, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Well it damn sure is free to the 50% of you leeching bums who pay NO FEderal Income Tax. It's free to you.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 2, 2010)

Ravi said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Just to be very very clear, these tax cuts apply to millionaires and billionaires too.  Everybody's first 250,000 gets the tax cut.

Republicans voted against a tax cut for essentially everyone who earns income.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 2, 2010)

WillowTree said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



You want to let ALL the Bush tax cuts expire?  They are primarily responsible for so many paying NO federal income tax.

Is that what you prefer?


----------



## Sallow (Dec 2, 2010)

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



What's keeping the landlord for kicking a tenant out for not paying the rent?

Hint: Paying the rent.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 2, 2010)

WillowTree said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



So when they expire, they are doing what the Republicans designed them to do.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 2, 2010)

Sallow said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



daveman works for the government.  that's the best part.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 2, 2010)

daveman said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > If the Bush deficits are so bad, what does that make the much larger Obama deficits?
> ...



90% of the Obama deficits are Bush deficits.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 2, 2010)

daveman said:


> Common Sense said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



So what would you have recommended - specifically - that the Democratic Congress not fund?


----------



## Revere (Dec 2, 2010)

"It's not Obama's debt."

"It is Obama's debt, but what was he supposed to do?"

Rinse, repeat.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 2, 2010)

WillowTree said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...


You do know it was the GOP tax cuts to buy votes that created that ~50%, don't you? Before the Bush tax cuts YOU want to make permanent that number was ~ 25%. Obviously you want the Bush tax cuts so you can whine about people not paying their fair share of taxes.


----------



## Varth Dader (Dec 2, 2010)

WillowTree said:


> so when they expire taxes go up.. we understand perfectly,



The saddest part of all this is that at the end of the day, Republicans are playing games with words instead of trying to look at this situation in a realistic fashion. They prefer to keep on repeating great talking points ("no tax increase!", etc.).

Maybe the tax rate for the highest bracket should be 49%. Maybe it should be 37%. Maybe a new rate should be added for people earning more than a million dollar a year. Who cares if it's a tax increase or tax cut. What matters is the budget, the deficit, the impact tax rates have on job creations, etc.

All these options should be on the table. Instead, we get a group of Republicans that show how narrow their vision in term of solution is.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 2, 2010)

WillowTree said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...


Are you referring to military families who have had to go on food stamps to make ends meet?  Because they are not paying income taxes.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 2, 2010)

Revere said:


> "It's not Obama's debt."
> 
> "It is Obama's debt, but what was he supposed to do?"
> 
> Rinse, repeat.


Who's the milquetoast in your avatar?  Your high school theater director?


----------



## elvis (Dec 2, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > "It's not Obama's debt."
> ...



I've seen him before. do you know who he is?


----------



## Sallow (Dec 2, 2010)

elvis said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...



Something about pure grain alcohol and precious bodily fluids might ring a bell..


----------



## elvis (Dec 2, 2010)

Sallow said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



that's MY avatar.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 2, 2010)

elvis said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



oh


----------



## EriktheRed (Dec 2, 2010)

Misty said:


> They did not give a tax cut to the middle class they extended it.
> 
> But this is a common ploy used by liberals to color the truth.



Kinda like telling people the Dems are actively *raising* taxes on the wealthy, rather than just letting a REPUBLICAN-enacted tax cut expire.


----------



## rdean (Dec 2, 2010)

Ravi said:


> Using a wily procedural maneuver to tie Republican hands, House  Democrats managed to pass, by a vote of 234-188, legislation that will  allow the Bush tax cuts benefiting only the wealthiest Americans to  expire.
> Democrats were not united on the issue. Twenty voted with Republicans  to kill the tax cut bill, as they hold out for extending additional  cuts to wealthy Americans -- though 3 Republicans, including Reps. Ron  Paul (TX) and Walter Jones (NC) voted for the tax cut extensions.  However the outcome will (and was designed to) allow Democrats to draw  distinctions between themselves and Republicans during the 2012 election  cycle.
> 
> 
> House Dems Pass Only Middle Class Tax Cut Bill | TPMDC



Actually, no.  The Democrats are once again screwing around a golden opportunity.  

Don't tie unemployment to tax cuts, simply have an up or down vote on unemployment benefits.  Leave the Republicans without any clothes.

Republicans are going to do everything can to pass tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires  after January.  Make them vote now against the middle class so everyone can see whose side they are on.  Many in the middle class think the Republicans, being nearly all white would be on their "side".  But the Republican leadership only sees "green".  They pretend to only see "white" to rile their base, but they squat on anyone not "rich".


----------



## rdean (Dec 2, 2010)

EriktheRed said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > They did not give a tax cut to the middle class they extended it.
> ...



Why not?  Check out the military.  How many are millionaires?  If the rich are not going to protect the country that made them millionaires then they should pay for the right to live here.  How much is a soldier's life worth?  

The middle class gives the lives of their children.  The rich should at least give up a mansion.  Use four instead of five.

I would think that would be obvious.  Is the Republicans base really so brainwashed?


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 2, 2010)

elvis said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...


I'm still trying to figure out who yours is!


----------



## EriktheRed (Dec 2, 2010)

rdean said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> > Misty said:
> ...




I don't if you got it or not, but I wasn't disagreeing with taxing the wealthy more. I was just pointing out how it's not just one side that "colors the truth".


----------



## EriktheRed (Dec 2, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > "It's not Obama's debt."
> ...



I'm pretty pretty sure it's that whiny loudmouth Mark Levin.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 2, 2010)

EriktheRed said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...


Really?  Wow, I would never have imagined him all soft and doughy.  With that whiny-ass shriek of his, I always pictured him looking more like this guy:






You know...that sniveling weasel look.


----------



## 8537 (Dec 2, 2010)

boedicca said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...


prove that "small biz's with 500ish employees are no longer paying taxes based on personal income?

Try it this way: you claimed that they were paying S-corp (private income) tax.  Prove that for us.


----------



## 8537 (Dec 2, 2010)

boedicca said:


> The Semantically Challenged combine that deficiency with Economic Illiteracy.  High tax rates do not increase tax receipts.
> 
> For the past few decades, no matter what the top marginal rates were, total tax receipts as a percent of GDP settled around 19%.



Lol...that's because the TMR is a small portion of total tax revenues...and because the portion of people impacted my the TMR - at any level - grows every year.


----------



## WillowTree (Dec 3, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



BullShit


----------



## RDD_1210 (Dec 3, 2010)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > Soggy in NOLA said:
> ...



Nice job at totally botching reading comprehension. You missed the point completely, but that's not surprising.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Dec 3, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



He's already proven he has trouble with reading comprehension, it shouldn't be a surprise he can't even bother to figure out who said what. 

I need to remind myself that when I come to this site, I'm often trying to have conversations with people who just aren't educated or forced to use their brain for any type of critical thinking. I need to dumb down what I'm saying so they can keep up with the conversation.


----------



## Claudette (Dec 3, 2010)

Hmm.

Let the Bush tax cuts expire. 

Let capital gains go to the highest in the world. 

Wonder if that will convince companies to hire and expand?? 

The Govt will get more money but it sure won't be helping the economy or job creation. 

Simple really. The proof will be in the putting and 2012 will look like the Wild Wild West.


----------



## Varth Dader (Dec 3, 2010)

Claudette said:


> Hmm.
> 
> Let the Bush tax cuts expire.
> 
> ...



Funny, but do you recall the massive growth in the 90s? Last I recall, it wasn't the Bush tax rates back then...


----------



## midcan5 (Dec 3, 2010)

And so it goes, let the whining from the right begin.....


"One percent of the nation owns a third of the wealth.  The rest of the wealth is distributed in such a way as to turn those in the 99 percent against one another: small property owners against the propertyless, black against white, native- born against foreign-born, intellectuals and professionals against the uneducated and unskilled.  These groups have resented one another and warred against one another with such vehemence and violence as to obscure their common position as sharers of leftovers in a very wealthy country."  Howard Zinn 'APHOTUS'


"Democracies have great rational and imaginative powers. They also are prone to some serious flaws in reasoning, to parochialism, haste, sloppiness, selfishness, narrowness of the spirit. Education based mainly on profitability in the global market magnifies these deficiencies, producing a greedy obtuseness and a technically trained docility that threaten the very life of democracy itself, and that certainly impede the creation of a decent world culture."  Martha Nussbaum


----------



## GHook93 (Dec 3, 2010)

Varth Dader said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > Hmm.
> ...



YES, that was because of the dot.com artificial growth. It BURST also causing a recession!

You do realize the reckless house practices that lead to the mortgage crisis were started during Clinton years, he was a direct beneficiary of the artificial housing boom!

But I love how you will give Clinton all the credit in the world for a great economy, but during the Bush years the economy grew and unemployment was low, until the mortgage bubble burst that is!


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 3, 2010)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > Soggy in NOLA said:
> ...


Hey asshole - are you going to retract this bullshit, or continue to be a dick?


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 3, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Soggy in NOLA said:
> ...


It's like this is the reject board.  Too stupid to make a decent wingnut argument on the other boards?  Come to USMB, where your fellow knuckledraggers and mouth-breathers have found a home...or cave.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 3, 2010)

GHook93 said:


> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



What was artificial about it?


----------



## daveman (Dec 3, 2010)

Sallow said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


Analogy fail.  

You and the rest of the leftist taxpayers here presumably do indeed pay taxes...rent, in your analogy.

What's keeping you from sending more of your money to the government?


----------



## daveman (Dec 3, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



And I pay taxes on what I earn.  Did you have a point, or is this just another flailing attempt to paint the military as a product of socialism?


----------



## daveman (Dec 3, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...


  See?  I was right!


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 3, 2010)

daveman said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


Does the taxpayer subsidize most of your taxes for you, also?


----------



## daveman (Dec 3, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Common Sense said:
> ...


The war.  You know, like they told you they opposed...but kept funding it anyway.  

But, it seems they either lack the courage of their convictions, or else they purposely lied to you to get you to vote for them.  Which do you suppose it is?


----------



## Dr.House (Dec 3, 2010)

Man up, libs...

Rip up your tax refund checks...

Better yet, when you get to the line that states the amount you are owed from Uncle Sam on your tax returns, just write in zero...  (Pretend it stands for "0"bama)


----------



## daveman (Dec 3, 2010)

rdean said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> > Misty said:
> ...


My parents didn't give me...I volunteered.

So, it looks like your whole stupid point is shot out of the saddle.


----------



## daveman (Dec 3, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


Only so far as my pay and benefits (which I earn) come from tax dollars.


----------



## jillian (Dec 3, 2010)

elvis said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...



which clinton? 

you're not going to get the senate if mcconnell keeps acting like a jackass... and if the right keeps nominating nutbars like angle and o'connell and company. heck, you should have had the senate this time around. 

just sayin'


----------

