# Poll on tax cuts: for everyone or for under $250k only



## kyzr (Dec 1, 2010)

The GOP presented a letter to Harry Reid saying that they want ALL tax cuts extended for all incomes, or they will filibuster everything.

OK.  Make my day.  No tax cut extensions, period.  Thanks GOP.

[actually the tax cuts are not detectable for those under $250k anyway]


----------



## kyzr (Dec 1, 2010)

This is a real political question, not a hypothetical one.  I saw it discussed today.  Maybe it doesn't matter who gets the tax cut extension, or if the Debt increases...


----------



## Revere (Dec 1, 2010)

Obama went on the biggest spending binge in the history of the world for two years without raising income taxes.

It's not the tax revenue.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 1, 2010)

If taxes are cut for everyone making under 250K a year, everyone making over 250K gets the same tax cuts.


----------



## rdean (Dec 1, 2010)

I think that since the Republicans were voted into office, let's make them happy and simply avoid taxing anyone making over a million dollars a year.

Yea, let's "experiment" and see just how many jobs that will produce.  Look at all the jobs Bush made.  Six straight years of Republican controlling everything and what their policies did to the economy was unbelievable.  Let's do it again, shall we?


----------



## Oddball (Dec 1, 2010)

Make them all permanent.

Better yet, junk the income tax altogether.


----------



## Article 15 (Dec 1, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> If taxes are cut for everyone making under 250K a year, everyone making over 250K gets the same tax cuts.



Yup.

Seems to me that giving every one the same tax cut up to 250k is where the compromise is at.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 1, 2010)

No extentions. Sunset the the whole thing.

Being a "land owner" I will wind up getting screwed less that way..


----------



## Article 15 (Dec 1, 2010)

But if the choice is all or none then eliminate all the cuts.

Time to pay the piper, America.


----------



## Nosmo King (Dec 1, 2010)

So, if I understand this predicament, everyone wants the economy chugging along again.  The American consumer and his spending drives the economy.  Some folks still push the tired old trickle down argument that cutting taxes for millionaires and billionaires will stimulate the economy.  Why?  Because those millionaires and billionaires create jobs.

But then wasn't it consumer spending that drives the economy?  Will those millionaires and billionaires spend their tax cuts and thus stimulate the economy?  And those jobs the rich create, why haven't they created them in America instead of China?

If the consumer drives the economy, wouldn't putting as much money in the hands of the most people do the most good?

Are Conservatives convinced that if they kowtow to the rich, maybe they too can become rich?  Why can't Conservatives admit what is so apparent?  Consumer spending is what makes the economy go round.  The flow of capital from one hand to another is what grows the economy.  The rich can't possibly spend the way the middle class can.  Why?  Because there aren't as many rich as there are middle class consumers.

Cut deficits?  Great!  But just as cats can be skinned in many ways, deficits can be reduced by raising the tax rates on the rich to the same levels they were during the Clinton years (and we all remember how well the American economy was doing then) coupled with reducing spending all across the board.  I'm looking at you, defense contractors!

Screw the rich.  It's been all gravy for them since W and "Compassionate Conservatism" helped drive manufacturing out of America and into Asia.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 1, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> But if the choice is all or none then eliminate all the cuts.
> 
> Time to pay the piper, America.


Time to start getting rid of some useless and overpaid pipers.


----------



## Revere (Dec 1, 2010)

No need to compromise with losers who were swept out of power.


----------



## Revere (Dec 1, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> But if the choice is all or none then eliminate all the cuts.
> 
> Time to pay the piper, America.



Since when?  Obama went on a two year spending binge second to none and did not raise income taxes.


----------



## Nosmo King (Dec 1, 2010)

Revere said:


> No need to compromise with losers who were swept out of power.


That's the spirit!  Dig in your heels!  Gridlock and bitter partisanship!  That'll solve our nation's problems!  The answer is petulance, and a shitload of it!

idiot.


----------



## Article 15 (Dec 1, 2010)

Oddball said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > But if the choice is all or none then eliminate all the cuts.
> ...



I'm fine with that but it isn't enough ... and no, lowering or eliminating the income tax isn't part of a realistic solution.

It will take a combo of spending cuts and tax increases to reverse this trend.


----------



## Nosmo King (Dec 1, 2010)

Revere said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > But if the choice is all or none then eliminate all the cuts.
> ...


Two wars without a tax increase.  Blame Obama?  LEARN RECENT HISTORY!!!!


----------



## Article 15 (Dec 1, 2010)

Revere said:


> No need to compromise with losers who were swept out of power.



Then the tax cuts go off into the sunset.   Works for me


----------



## Revere (Dec 1, 2010)

Nosmo King said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



Deficits held steady, and were on the way down until 2008.


----------



## Revere (Dec 1, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > No need to compromise with losers who were swept out of power.
> ...



Who's getting their taxes cut?


----------



## Article 15 (Dec 1, 2010)

Revere said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...



The cost of both were kept off the books, pedal that nonsense somewhere else.


----------



## Article 15 (Dec 1, 2010)

Revere said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...



Nobody if the GOP doesn't want to compromise.


----------



## Revere (Dec 1, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



Even with the cost of the wars, they were nowhere near Obama's spending and debt orgies.

And he has passed off budget defense and other spending.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 1, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...


There's no way to tax your way out of gross overspending.

The spending is and will remain the problem.


----------



## Nosmo King (Dec 1, 2010)

Revere said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...


In eight years we went from a budget surplus to record deficits.  Wanna teach us how to fix this after you broke the last one?  Good thing we're all not as gullible and intractable as trickle down Conservatives!  

We would be doing the Curly-run-in-a-circle-while-laying-on-our-side dance.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Dec 1, 2010)

Tax increases for those who make less then 100.000$ end food stamps .


----------



## Revere (Dec 1, 2010)

Nosmo King said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



Not unusual for wartime.

Deficts were on the way back down until 2008.


----------



## Article 15 (Dec 1, 2010)

Revere said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...



And how exactly does that make your post any less disengenuous?


----------



## Revere (Dec 1, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



Because Bush's deficits were around $400B, and Obama's are around $1T.

Why didn't Obama pay that "piper?"


----------



## Nosmo King (Dec 1, 2010)

Revere said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...


Then learn all the history you possibly can!  We have never fought a protracted war, let alone two, without raising taxes to pay for it.

Not unusual for wartime.  horsefeathers.


----------



## Article 15 (Dec 1, 2010)

Oddball said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



I understand that which is why I advocate increasing taxes and cutting spending.


----------



## Revere (Dec 1, 2010)

Nosmo King said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



WWII, actually two wars or two fronts, resulted in massive new debt.


----------



## Nosmo King (Dec 1, 2010)

Revere said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...


But we paid for that war during its prosecution.  We sold bonds, raised taxes and instituted rationing all to pay for the war effort.  W told us to go to the mall, China would front us the cash for his excellent Iraqi adventure.


----------



## Article 15 (Dec 1, 2010)

Revere said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...



So are you conceding that deficits were not on the decline during the Bush admin like you claimed?

The first trillion dollar deficit is on Bush.  The FY2009 budget is his.

As to Obama's trillion dollar deficit in FY2010, I'm not happy with that either.  Hello?  Spending cuts and tax increases ... it's what I am calling for here while you want to play partisan games.


----------



## Article 15 (Dec 1, 2010)

Revere said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...



What were the marginal tax rates during WWII?


----------



## Oddball (Dec 1, 2010)

Nosmo King said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


Total crap.

There never was a balanced budget or surplus....Those numbers were only _*projected*_ out from '98 to '02, after which entitlement spending (read: SS, Medicare/Medicaid) were going to explode the deficit through the power of demographics.

Your democrat hack Bush/republican haters are getting _*really*_ pathetic.


----------



## Revere (Dec 1, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



Deficits were on the decline until Republicans ceased to control Congress.

Is running up a trillion in new debt for two years then demanding Republicans pay for it a "partisan game?"

Yeah, it is.


----------



## Revere (Dec 1, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



Who cares...the wars created massive, for the time, new debt.


----------



## rdean (Dec 1, 2010)

Revere said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...



That is simply the single most retarded thing you have ever said.  Fool.


----------



## Revere (Dec 1, 2010)

It's true.

Obama spent like a drunken sailor for two years now he wants someone else to pay for it.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 1, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...


Taxes are already at insanely high levels....The federal rates are only a fraction of the story.

The problem remains spending.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 1, 2010)

Nosmo King said:


> So, if I understand this predicament, everyone wants the economy chugging along again.  The American consumer and his spending drives the economy.  Some folks still push the tired old trickle down argument that cutting taxes for millionaires and billionaires will stimulate the economy.  Why?  Because those millionaires and billionaires create jobs.
> 
> But then wasn't it consumer spending that drives the economy?  Will those millionaires and billionaires spend their tax cuts and thus stimulate the economy?  And those jobs the rich create, why haven't they created them in America instead of China?
> 
> ...



People with means, not only the wealthy open businesses which create jobs. Those people in turn spend their earnings which in turn allows shopkeepers to hire more workers which then introduces more working/taxpaying people into the system and so on.
See where this is going? If that is not too difficult to understand.
You lefties just refuse to acknowledge that the majority of wealthy people vote democrat and contribute to liberal causes. In fact democrats in Congress are very wealthy people.
Where the greatest concentration of wealth in this country lies is precisely where we find the greatest concentration of democrat voters.
This notion that all people with an above average amount of money in the bank automatically vote GOP is a myth.
But you and those like you will continue to buy into class envy because many of you cannot stand it that someone has more than you.


----------



## Article 15 (Dec 1, 2010)

Revere said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...



No, deficits were not on the decline.  The wars were kept off the books.  Don't think you are going to try make the same point less than a page after it's been debunked and get away with it.  

And again ... one of those two trillion dollar deficits was Bush's.  So, no, I'm not the one playing partisan games here.  You are.  You are trying to saddle this all on the Dems ... the debt/deficit is bipartisan.


----------



## rdean (Dec 1, 2010)

Revere said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...



This is the second most retarded thing you ever said.  From 2001  to 2008, Republicans helped move millions of jobs to China.  The 2.4 trillion dollar tax break, with more then 52% going to the top 1% was not offset.  Then the "Drugs for Votes" bill added another couple of trillion.  Then the two unpaid for wars another three trillion at least not to mention the cost of taking care of tens of thousands of Americans who have been maimed and the deficit was on the way down?  Fool.  And you know, there is no way the Republican leadership wants to take care of injured Americans.  They shit on the middle class, they won't want to take care of a bunch of wounded soldiers.  They've got millionaires to worry about.

You are something else.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 1, 2010)

Revere said:


> It's true.
> 
> Obama spent like a drunken sailor for two years now he wants someone else to pay for it.


Bush spent like a drunken sailor....As did Bubba....As did Poppy Bush....As did Reagan....As did Peanuts.....

Yet still, there are people who will keep telling us that we _*can*_ have everything at the expense of everyone else....And there are _*still *_people gullible enough to believe it.


----------



## Revere (Dec 1, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



All of it was the Democrat Congress.

Yeah, they were on the decline.  Pull any chart that says otherwise.

And Obama had off budget war and other spending.  

The Dems can't stop spending. It should be saddled on them.


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 1, 2010)

No tax cuts for anyone.


----------



## rdean (Dec 1, 2010)

thereisnospoon said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > So, if I understand this predicament, everyone wants the economy chugging along again.  The American consumer and his spending drives the economy.  Some folks still push the tired old trickle down argument that cutting taxes for millionaires and billionaires will stimulate the economy.  Why?  Because those millionaires and billionaires create jobs.
> ...



People only hire when people are buying.  Get it?  No one hires for "fun".  If no one is buying, no one gets hired.


----------



## Revere (Dec 1, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> No tax cuts for anyone.



Whose taxes would be cut?


----------



## Revere (Dec 1, 2010)

Nobody buys if everyone gets poorer.


----------



## Nosmo King (Dec 1, 2010)

thereisnospoon said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > So, if I understand this predicament, everyone wants the economy chugging along again.  The American consumer and his spending drives the economy.  Some folks still push the tired old trickle down argument that cutting taxes for millionaires and billionaires will stimulate the economy.  Why?  Because those millionaires and billionaires create jobs.
> ...


I give put as much money in the hands of the most people do the most good, and you give class envy.  Sheesh!  How about an argument against putting as much money in the hands of the most people do the most good?  

Or do you really believe that those with means will open shop in America not Shanghai?


----------



## Article 15 (Dec 1, 2010)

Oddball said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



I disagree that taxes are at insanely high levels but I agree that the main problem is spending. When the spending results in $13 trillion in debt and a $1.3 trillion deficit then the solution has to be a combo of tax increases and spending cuts.  Time to pay the piper.


----------



## Revere (Dec 1, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



Why didn't Obama "pay the piper" for two years?


----------



## Revere (Dec 1, 2010)

Spending should be cut to pre-Obama levels.  Obama is "the piper."


----------



## Article 15 (Dec 1, 2010)

Revere said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...



Not true but you knew that.  Besides the Bush admin submitted the budget and signed it.  Like I said, bipartisan.



> Yeah, they were on the decline.  Pull any chart that says otherwise.



No, they weren't.  You repeating it doesn't make it so.  The wars were kept off the books.



> *And Obama had off budget war* and other spending.



False.



> The Dems can't stop spending. It should be saddled on them.



Pure partisan nonsense.


----------



## Nosmo King (Dec 1, 2010)

Revere said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


I know!!  Because lax oversite on Wall Street (thanks Sen. Phil Gramm (R) Texas, Chairman of the Senate banking Committee!) allowed them to bundle mortgages into derivatives, make huge profits and collapse the world economy.  In order to prime the pump, Obama had to act as the customer of last resort and move capital through the economy.


----------



## Revere (Dec 1, 2010)




----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 1, 2010)

Nosmo King said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > No need to compromise with losers who were swept out of power.
> ...


Hey genius. Where was all this talk about bi-partisanship when the democrats controlled the legislative branch?
Guess what? It didn't God damn exist. 
SO now the shoe is on the other foot and you people are screaming about compromise.
Well, screw that. The last time the GOP reached across the aisle the dems cracked the GOP across the knuckles with a ruler.
You people will just have to take a seat on the porch and the let the big dogs run the show now. Your side had it's chance and it failed. That's why your side LOST the House majority.
Go do some reading.
The reason why the founders set up the government in the way it is was to prevent government from doing too much.
Have you any idea why the Senate filibuster rule exists? Go look it up..
Have you a clue as to why there are an equal number of Senators in the Upper Chamber yet a number of representatives in the House relative to the population of each State? Go look it up.
Stop posting this insipid class warfare drivel. It's boring.


----------



## Revere (Dec 1, 2010)

Nosmo King said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



Who told banks to make loans to borrowers who could not repay?


----------



## Revere (Dec 1, 2010)

Why be "bi-partisan" with with a party whose ideas got their asses kicked?

Partisan?  Damn straight.

We won.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 1, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


Prove it. show some links. Failing that ,your post is bullshit.


----------



## Revere (Dec 1, 2010)

Two years of the most out of control spending in the history of the planet.  Now Obama wants somone else to "pay the piper."


----------



## Article 15 (Dec 1, 2010)

Revere said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Because the economy was in complete tailspin when he took office and he campaigned on, and was elected touting a plan for a trillion dollar stimulus to keep the economy afloat.  The economy is helluva lot more stable now than it was 2 years ago and we are in a better position to actually do something about the problem.


----------



## Revere (Dec 1, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



It still is in a tailspin, so evidently it's not working.


----------



## Revere (Dec 1, 2010)

A coma is "stable."


----------



## Article 15 (Dec 1, 2010)

thereisnospoon said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...



Are you kidding me?  

Supplemental emergency funding ring a bell to you?


----------



## Revere (Dec 1, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



The same $100B a year Obama is still spending, and then some.  Debt is debt.


----------



## Article 15 (Dec 1, 2010)

Revere said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...



We are no longer hemoraging hundreds of thousands of jobs a month and GDP is growing.


----------



## Revere (Dec 1, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



All recessions end.

What's taking this one so long?


----------



## Article 15 (Dec 1, 2010)

Revere said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



But you don't want to count that debt during the Bush years so you can claim the defiicts were on the decline.  It's laughable the game you are trying to play.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 1, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...


No....it is the democrats who want to be a stick in the mud.
Remember the newly elected people have not been sworn into office.
This is still the same majority democrat House and Senate.
This is nothing but a craftily cobbled together attempt by the democrat leadership and the Obama admin to gain political cover over the tax cut extension.
The GOP will not compromise on issues and policy.
The GOP will be the majority party in 2011 and beyond. You lefties will just have to suck it up and deal with it.
Oh yeah, if the democrats had not been such a miserable lot to deal with and they had at least pretended to listen to the people, the party would quite possibly have retained the majority in the House.


----------



## Revere (Dec 1, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



It's in there.  

Obama's new debt still blows away Bush's.


----------



## Article 15 (Dec 1, 2010)

Revere said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...



It was the biggest collapse since the 20's ... these things don't turn around very quickly.


----------



## Revere (Dec 1, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



The same failed policies in the 30s are being tried today.


----------



## Article 15 (Dec 1, 2010)

Revere said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...



Which ones.  

Be specific.


----------



## Article 15 (Dec 1, 2010)

Revere said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...



Obama's deficit is practically the same as Bush's final budget.


----------



## Revere (Dec 1, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



Failed Keynesian government spending.

Permanent high unemployment in the 30s.

Permanent high unemployment today.


----------



## Article 15 (Dec 1, 2010)

Revere said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...



I said be specific.


----------



## Revere (Dec 1, 2010)

Obama's policies are the same as FDR's.


----------



## Article 15 (Dec 1, 2010)

Revere said:


> Obama's policies are the same as FDR's.



So you go back to vague generalities ... I'm convinced now


----------



## Revere (Dec 1, 2010)

Same stuff...dig a hole and fill it in public works, government deciding which businesses go forward and which do not.


----------



## Article 15 (Dec 1, 2010)

Revere said:


> Same stuff...dig a hole and fill it in public works, *government deciding which businesses go forward and which do not.*



How so.


----------



## KissMy (Dec 1, 2010)

Here is the New York Times "Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget" Tool.

With this tool I can easily balance the budget by cutting deficit spending by 60% & covering the remaining 40% by eliminating some tax loopholes & deductions. We can keep Social Security the same, allow the military to keep US safe & keep the tax cuts.

- Cut foreign aid in half
- Eliminate earmarks
- Cut pay of civilian federal workers by 5 percent
- Reduce noncombat military compensation and overhead
- Reduce the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 60,000 by 2015
- Cap Medicare growth starting in 2013
- Reduce Social Security benefits for those with high incomes
- Eliminate loopholes, but keep taxes slightly higher
- Reduce mortgage deduction and others for high-income households
- Bank Tax


----------



## Article 15 (Dec 1, 2010)

KissMy said:


> Here is the New York Times "Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget" Tool.
> 
> With this tool I can easily balance the budget by cutting deficit spending by 60% & covering the remaining 40% by eliminating some tax deductions. We can keep the tax cuts.
> 
> ...



Sweet link.  Thanks.


----------



## Revere (Dec 1, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > Same stuff...dig a hole and fill it in public works, *government deciding which businesses go forward and which do not.*
> ...



Carbon based energy - dead.  Government backed automakers - full steam ahead.  Health care providers - dead.  Black "farmers" who never farmed - 40 acres and a mule.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 1, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



Time to really turn over a lot of what government does to the private sector.  Also time to close $Billions in corporate tax loopholes and give incentives to those that create jobs here; a tax break for every worker hired???


----------



## Article 15 (Dec 1, 2010)

Revere said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...



And how is this is different from any other government tax policy oever the years that is designed to steer the country in one direction over another?



> Government backed automakers - full steam ahead.



And who came to who asking for bailout there?



> Health care providers - dead.



No public option in HRC yet there's an insurance mandate ... sounds like a win for insurance industry ... as it  should considering it was practically written by them.  I know I don't see them closing up shop.



> Black "farmers" who never farmed - 40 acres and a mule.



I have no idea what you are talking about here.


----------



## shintao (Dec 1, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > Same stuff...dig a hole and fill it in public works, *government deciding which businesses go forward and which do not.*
> ...



Well take Haliburton for instance and it's no bid Cheney contracts.


----------



## Revere (Dec 1, 2010)

You wanted a list.  There it is. 

Make up your mind.

Deny that this regime picks winners and losers in business or rationalize their picks.


----------



## AquaAthena (Dec 1, 2010)

Oddball said:


> Make them all permanent.
> 
> Better yet, junk the income tax altogether.


----------



## Article 15 (Dec 1, 2010)

Revere said:


> You wanted a list.  There it is.
> 
> Make up your mind.
> 
> Deny that this regime picks winners and losers in business or rationalize their picks.




Your point amounts to a bunch of nothing.  There are winners and losers in every decision the gov't makes.  If they denied the bailout for the auto companies they would still be "picking" a winner or loser.  If they put a public option in HRC then the healthcare industry would have been made a loser.  If they didn't make policies focusing on clean energy then clean energy would have been losers and carbon based winners.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 1, 2010)

Revere said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...



We're not in recession.  We're in a period of slow growth.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 1, 2010)

Revere said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...



No, it's not.

This is the problem with this place, you have to debate people who simply do not know, or willfully ignore, the facts.


----------



## Revere (Dec 1, 2010)

It's comatose.


----------



## Nosmo King (Dec 2, 2010)

Revere said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...


While the amount of "bad" mortgages totaled less than 800 billion, the derivative market reached throughout the world!  Why did the Icelandic economy collapse?  Did banks in Reykjavik make bad loans too?


----------



## editec (Dec 2, 2010)

I object to this $250K benchmark.

Our tax structures need to recognize that somebody making $250K ought NOT to be taxed at the same rate as people making $250 million.

If we actually continued the rate of taxations progressively, we'd have rates of taxation that were marginally higher for those making more than $250 K.

And if we did that the rate for $250 slaries would be MUCH MUCH lower than it currently is.


----------



## Ravi (Dec 2, 2010)

kyzr said:


> The GOP presented a letter to Harry Reid saying that they want ALL tax cuts extended for all incomes, or they will filibuster everything.
> 
> OK.  Make my day.  No tax cut extensions, period.  Thanks GOP.
> 
> [actually the tax cuts are not detectable for those under $250k anyway]


IMO, Bush's tax cuts should be allowed to expire across the board.

If they are extended I will continue to take as much profit out of my company as possible and put it into my retirement account. If they are not extended I will spend more money on equipment and/or employees to avoid paying higher taxes.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Dec 2, 2010)

Nosmo King said:


> So, if I understand this predicament, everyone wants the economy chugging along again.  The American consumer and his spending drives the economy.  Some folks still push the tired old trickle down argument that cutting taxes for millionaires and billionaires will stimulate the economy.  Why?  Because those millionaires and billionaires create jobs.
> 
> But then wasn't it consumer spending that drives the economy?  Will those millionaires and billionaires spend their tax cuts and thus stimulate the economy?  And those jobs the rich create, why haven't they created them in America instead of China?
> 
> ...



Excellent post, too bad the echo chamber won't read it, and if by chance one does, they will reject it - anything which deviates from the few immutable truths they hold on faith must be rejected.  It's the strength of the New Right and will eventually become their undoing.

Reading the posts of the more notorious of the New Right one is struck by their rigidity and inability to frame an argument in support of the conclusions they hold near and dear.  What evidence is there which suggests those who earn over X amount are the creators of jobs?  
What evidence is there that the Republican Party is the party of fiscal responsibility?
What would be the result of the repeal of the progressive income tax?  Of Social Security?  Of Medicare?

Such opinions are widely held by those self described 'conservatives', yet, none of them ever posts a reasoned argument in support of such opinions; opinions where the author suggests simple solutions to complex problems are a panacea are reported but never analyzed.  Nor do they post, or likely ever consider the pros and cons of such 'solutions'.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 2, 2010)

Revere said:


> It's comatose.



 You seem to be deprived of the emotion that causes embarassment in being factually wrong.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 2, 2010)

editec said:


> I object to this $250K benchmark.
> 
> Our tax structures need to recognize that somebody making $250K ought NOT to be taxed at the same rate as people making $250 million.
> 
> ...



A person making 250,000 isn't taxed at the top rate.  This is where too many people don't seem to be getting it.

The top rates kick in on money over 250,000.  If you make 260,000, you'd only pay the top rate on 10,000, which means if that rate went up 3 percentage points, 

you'd only pay an extra $300.


----------



## JWBooth (Dec 2, 2010)

Oddball said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > But if the choice is all or none then eliminate all the cuts.
> ...





Oddball said:


> Make them all permanent.
> Better yet, junk the income tax altogether.



Yep


----------



## DiamondDave (Dec 2, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



Fine.. increase taxes... start taxing the 50% who pay no income taxes... and raise everyone to the same rate as the top bracket....

But funny thing is... you start doing that and I bet a lot of people will start calling for reduction in government, reduction in government spending, and lower taxes..... funny how that happens when you actually have an equal stake in the game


----------



## Common Sense (Dec 2, 2010)

the options here should actually be different. 

1) renew bush tax cuts for all at a cost of approx $3.7 trillion, and taxes are not affected ($3T for the middle class and $700 billion for the top 2%)

2) renew the bush tax cuts for the middle class at a cost of $3 trillion, and let them expire for the top 2$ (either saving $700 billion or spending only $3 trillion depending on the way you look at it)

2) let them expire and save $3.7 trillion, but taxes go up. 

for all those fiscal hawks out there is saving $3.7 trillion worth an increase in taxes? or do we borrow another $3.7 T to pay for them?

also, people forget that with renewing the cuts only for the middle class, the wealthy still get the cut for the first $250,000 of their income. 

Mobile.Politico.com: Tax cuts in black and white


----------



## Dr.House (Dec 2, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> But if the choice is all or none then eliminate all the cuts.
> 
> Time to pay the piper, America.



How about we budget for a cheaper piper instead?


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 2, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...


The big one...Government trying spend it's way out of a recession.
Never worked. never will.
The tax and spenders complain about how lowering taxes takes money out of the economy. Straw man argument.
Higher taxes cause the economy to contract. Government overspending( running up huge deficits) creates consternation among investors and builders. Job creation has slowed to a crawl because of these insane deficits AND the impending increase in taxes on income and business.
I heard this guy on the radio today( caller) complaining about the alleged trillion dollars business is "sitting on" and whining about how companies are refusing to hire.
Nonsense.
First there is no magic pot of money just sitting around. Second, companies that need new people will hire if the government would just get off their backs. This new Obamacare and now that the deficit reduction committee is looking at ending the tax credit to business for providing health insurance might be going away, employees may be saddled with the undaunting task of buying coverage themselves. Companies will not add to their payrolls until these things are decided upon.
Small business, employers of 60% of the workforce, are holding off hiring because they may be slammed by the expiration of the Bush tax cut. In fact, many businesses may even contract to fall under the $250k threshold. 
This is quite possibly THE MOST anti- business and anti job administration in US history.
The Trillion plus spent in "stimulus" has done NOTHING to increase employment. 
The Obama admin has admitted there were/are no "shovel ready" projects.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Dec 2, 2010)

The reason the Republicans want the Bush tax cuts to continue millionaires and billionaires is really quite simple, they get their 'base' the carrot & they can blame Obama for the growing deficit.  It's a two-fold victory for the Republicans, and a defeat for the American people.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 2, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...


Please.....It all comes from the same pot.
Get out here with crap.
This administration has run up over $3 trillion dollars in NEW deficits all by itself. 
You side's "blame Bush" nonsense is over with. No more.
This is Obama's and the democrat's watch. You people put the current admin in office. Your side put the Senate and House in office. 
Look in the mirror. Blame yourself.
I notice the fading Obama stickers on the bumpers of cars. Lots of SUV's I might add.
These middle class suburbanites who flipped the democrat switch in 2008 are the ones suffering the most. Their large homes and three car families all tied up in in overheated real estate values, thought they would see a change in their fortunes. HA!!!!
These people thought they were going to get something from government.
Nice. Greed. From someone else's pocket.
Now the party is over. Semi-wealthy suburban voters are suffering the consequences of their desire for instant gratification.
Now it's OUR fault. The people that work hard, limit credit card use, save and do not live beyond their means are being targeted to surrender theirs.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Dec 2, 2010)

If it's true that those who earn over $250,000 per year really create jobs, let those who do have a tax credit.  To continue to offer those who earn millions each year will not result in more toasters or golf clubs or power tools being sold, and even if it did such products are being made in China because those who earn the big manufactoring bucks took a hike across the seas years ago.
Country First, just a slogan - Money and Power first, yep that's the Republican way.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 2, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...


That is specific enough.
Look, you just go out and earn for yourself. Stop looking to government to solve your problems.
Stay out of our bank accounts. We owe you nothing.
Look genius , at the end of the day, there isn't enough wealth to satisfy your side's insatiable desire to grab the wealth of others to satisfy your needs.


----------



## teapartysamurai (Dec 2, 2010)

Helloooooooooooooo!

How about make the tax cuts PERMANENT.

Why is the choices only to extend them for two years?

That's not a choice at all.  

That's the compromise the Obama admin is trying.


----------



## Common Sense (Dec 2, 2010)

teapartysamurai said:


> Helloooooooooooooo!
> 
> How about make the tax cuts PERMANENT.
> 
> ...



to make them permanent, they needed 60 senate votes which they didnt have. so they passed them under reconciliation rules. The Tax Foundation - Why Are the Bush Tax Cuts Expiring?.
this allowed them to pass with a simple majority vote of 51, which they did have. this was very controversial. they basically did an end around to get the bill passed instead of following the current guidelines. 


from the article:
"In 1999, the Senate for the first time used reconciliation to pass legislation that would increase deficits: the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act 1999. The budget was in surplus at the time, but it was still controversial. In any case, President Clinton vetoed the bill. A year later the Senate again used reconciliation to pass the Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000, which President Clinton also vetoed."

so republicans wanted to pass tax cuts that would increase the deficits under reconciliation rules. Clinton in turn vetoed the bill. but once Bush came into power, the Repubs again pushed the tax cuts back across his desk and it was signed into law, but would only allow them to stand for 10 years. this also in turn raised the deficit again.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 2, 2010)

We never paid for either war of this decade, nor are we paying for Medicare part D, the prescription drug bill, so,

question is to all of you who want no tax increases of any kind, no expiration of tax cuts,

how do YOU pay for just those 3, past, present, and future?


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 2, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > You wanted a list.  There it is.
> ...


GM, Chrysler( no longer and American company) and to a lesser extent, Ford, were bailed out for ONE reason, to pay back the unions for their undying support of Obama's election.
"Too big to fail" was bad policy. GM and Ford were not going to just disappear into the night.
Besides, other auto manufacturers whether they be a restructured domestic or foreign would have filled the void left behind.
Same goes for the Banks and other financials that were bailed out. The companies that were failing, should have been permitted to fail. Again, restructured banks and financials would have been created or other, less burdened companies would have taken their place.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 2, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...


Then what are people whining about?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 2, 2010)

thereisnospoon said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...



You owe nothing?  We have 12 trillion of national debt, or whatever the number is.

Who owes THAT?


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 2, 2010)

editec said:


> I object to this $250K benchmark.
> 
> Our tax structures need to recognize that somebody making $250K ought NOT to be taxed at the same rate as people making $250 million.
> 
> ...


And this would accomplish what?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 2, 2010)

thereisnospoon said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...



The whining is from the GOP saying we can't let ANY of the tax cuts expire in a recession.  

Which is total disingenuousness, because the GOP wouldn't support letting any of these tax cuts expire no matter what condition the economy was in.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 2, 2010)

Nosmo King said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...


He's not a serious person.  Ignore him.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 2, 2010)

Wry Catcher said:


> The reason the Republicans want the Bush tax cuts to continue millionaires and billionaires is really quite simple, they get their 'base' the carrot & they can blame Obama for the growing deficit.  It's a two-fold victory for the Republicans, and a defeat for the American people.


Bull cookies
Your side equates wealthy with GOP. Not so.
Look at voting patterns. Where are the democrat voters? They are in the areas of the country where there are the highest concentrations of wealth. NY, NJ, CT, MA, CA. IL and urban centers of Dallas and Houston.
So don't go thinking you can pull the wool over the eyes of Americans by playing the "rich republican" card. it won't wash.
Are there wealthy GOP voters? Sure. 
Let's look at wealthy people.
The Heinz family...Big liberals. The Kennedys. Bill Gates. George Soros. We all know where their loyalties lie.


----------



## Common Sense (Dec 2, 2010)

thereisnospoon said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...



it wasnt necessarily that they would fold over night, it had to do with the industry and the amount of jobs they supported. all of the manufacturers and supplies who sold parts and services to GM and Chrysler were going to be hit extremely hard as well, but because of the loan that was made to GM it has been estimated that over 1 millions jobs outside of GM have been saved. Thats is because GM continued to operate. thats what they were looking at. Sure GM might have been bought, or just been dismantled through bankruptcy, but what about all of those jobs that would have been lost by supporting businesses? would you then go back and blame Obama for all those job loses as well? 

for the banks, simply letting banks fail is not good policy. is restricts the flow of capital in the way of loans and credit to both businesses and individuals. but what is the issue here? all of the major banks have paid back the TARP $: JPMorgan and 9 Other Banks Repay TARP Money - NYTimes.com. the only banks that havent paid back their loans are smaller community banks. since these loans were paid back with interest, and we actually made $ on them :Report Shows TARP Profits Top Treasury Bond Returns. so im unclear of the argument here that simply letting companies that have a large stake in the overall health of our economy fail.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Dec 2, 2010)

thereisnospoon said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > The reason the Republicans want the Bush tax cuts to continue millionaires and billionaires is really quite simple, they get their 'base' the carrot & they can blame Obama for the growing deficit.  It's a two-fold victory for the Republicans, and a defeat for the American people.
> ...



Those you named support Democratic principles and by their words and deeds understand the principle of _Noblesse oblige_, unlike the Kock Brothers and the 'Money Changers' of Wall Street who feel no obligation to anyone or anything but profit.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 2, 2010)

Revere said:


> It's true.
> 
> Obama spent like a drunken sailor for two years now he wants someone else to pay for it.


Examples?


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 2, 2010)

Oddball said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


Ridiculous.  They were higher under Clinton, and the rich still got richer.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 2, 2010)

Revere said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


With WHAT?  Did you want him to borrow more from China?

You are clearly trolling.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 2, 2010)

Revere said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...


Why didn't Bush/Cheney hold them accountable for their bad business decisions, then?


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 2, 2010)

Revere said:


> Why be "bi-partisan" with with a party whose ideas got their asses kicked?
> 
> Partisan?  Damn straight.
> 
> *We won*.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 2, 2010)

thereisnospoon said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...


Let me google that for you

I love this!


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 2, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...


He recognizes it, but doesn't know what it means.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 2, 2010)

The poll choices are inadequate.

The correct response is to make all of the tax cuts permanent. Most small businesses are not going to increase payroll just to be walloped in the back of the head with a huge tax increase in 2013.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 2, 2010)

Revere said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...


See?


----------



## DiamondDave (Dec 2, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



In spite of the taxation.. .they did not get rich because of the higher taxation

The problem DOES remain to be spending... ridiculous amounts of government spending


----------



## kyzr (Dec 2, 2010)

boedicca said:


> The poll choices are inadequate.
> 
> The correct response is to make all of the tax cuts permanent. Most small businesses are not going to increase payroll just to be walloped in the back of the head with a huge tax increase in 2013.



The correct response is to make the wealthy pay taxes for the people whose jobs they moved overseas.  They moved 14,000 factories and built or expanded thousands more, jobs that used to be here in the US.  

Making tax cuts permanent would make the US go bankrupt, not the answer, not even close.  I can't believe the whining by the GOP and the wealthy for a few percent increase in taxes.  Maybe they should picture a failed US economy and a real depression when the economy crashes permanently.

STOP WHINING.  COUNT YOUR BLESSINGS, you greedy fucks.


----------



## Trajan (Dec 2, 2010)

boedicca said:


> The poll choices are inadequate.
> 
> The correct response is to make all of the tax cuts permanent. Most small businesses are not going to increase payroll just to be walloped in the back of the head with a huge tax increase in 2013.



bingo I say 4 years minimum.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 2, 2010)

kyzr said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > The poll choices are inadequate.
> ...




The above is a classic Pea Green With Envy Class Warfare Rant.


It's also incredibly ignorant.  In major metro areas, a couple making a combined income of $250,000 can be a nurse married to a marketing director living in a 3 bedroom 2 bath tract home in Sunnyvale.  Hardly the Wealthy Elite. 

And you want to tax any extra bit of income they make at a marginal rate of over 50% (including state taxes).


----------



## kyzr (Dec 2, 2010)

Until the morons in congress learn how to control spending someone needs to pay for their stupidity, namely the ones with jobs/money.  You can't keep borrowing,  or the entire system collapses.  Cutting taxes and borrowing from China and paying interest on that borrowed money isn't class-envy, or class-warfare, its called being fiscally responsible.  
Stop whining.  If/when the debt comes down the tax rates can come down.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 2, 2010)

Businesses rich enough to be affected by the top rate will start hiring when they need more employees to meet demand,

and plus or minus 3 percentage points on the top fraction of their net income isn't going to affect that one way or another.

Use your head.  If you had the opportunity to make an extra, say, ten grand profit in your business, would you pass it up because you had to pay 3900 in taxes instead of 3600?

No, you wouldn't, nor would anyone with a brain.  So stop pretending otherwise.


----------



## snjmom (Dec 3, 2010)

boedicca said:


> kyzr said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



250,000 per household is about 5 times the median income in CA. And triple the median income in Sunnyvale, CA. I would consider that the elite. I'm sure they certainly consider themselves as such. Not what I would consider a middle-class community.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 3, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> We never paid for either war of this decade, nor are we paying for Medicare part D, the prescription drug bill, so,
> 
> question is to all of you who want no tax increases of any kind, no expiration of tax cuts,
> 
> how do YOU pay for just those 3, past, present, and future?


Why is it you lefties are never concerned about how a tax INCREASE will be paid for?
How is it that the government has a budget and yet the government considers the people to have an unlimited supply of money?
can you explain the difference?


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 3, 2010)

snjmom said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > kyzr said:
> ...



Looks like the median home price in Sunnyvale is about $500k.
Sunnyvale Home Prices and Heat Map - Trulia.com
Median income of Sunnyvale is $82,000.. 
So why are libs hung up on $250k? Because that is what you were told by Obama and Biden. They told you what to think.
Well, heck. Let's make it so that non one can have assets exceed $250,000. That includes a home and all their investments and income as well as cash and collectibles. After all, according to you libs, they don't "need" it.
You people are a miracle. In some cities such as NYC, Washington, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Honolulu, $250k( less the government admission charge of 35%) per year is not wealthy. It's getting by.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Dec 3, 2010)

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


​


----------



## Common Sense (Dec 3, 2010)

thereisnospoon said:


> snjmom said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



its not exactly the middle class either. someone making over $250k annually doesn't have problems of putting food on the table and paying their rent or mortgage. plus anyone making over $250k still get the tax cut on the first $250k of their income. 

now we could raise the limit to say $500,000 a year, but repubs still maintain that they want to keep the tax cuts for all, so the talking point doesnt hold any weight right now either. 

this will only affect 1 in 50 households. approx 1.5-2% of all household. 

FactCheck.org: What percentage of the U.S. population makes more than $250,000 per year?
Affluence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Zander (Dec 3, 2010)

Less government by starvation.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Dec 3, 2010)

If it's to expire for some, it should expire for all.  This class warfare bs is utterly insane.

But please, please stop wasting our money on crap.

I don't mind paying taxes as long as my money isn't being wasted on crap that has not, does not and will not work.

Time for a flat tax?


----------



## Two Thumbs (Dec 3, 2010)

Mr. Shaman said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wDdWJcpJj0
> 
> 
> ​



Did you just link in some racheal maddow msnbc bs?

good *lord *that explains A _*LOT*_​


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 3, 2010)

Common Sense said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > snjmom said:
> ...



No they do not. Income is taxed at ONE rate. If one earns a certain amount in a year, all of those earnings are taxed at the rate commensurate with the size of the paycheck.
For example. My wife is paid a performance bonus at the end of each fiscal year.
That bonusis a lump sum payment. Because of the way the IRS calculates earnings, that money is taxed at the higher rate bwecause it is treated as a regular check. So where as her bi weekly salary falls in the 28% bracket, the bonus is treated as a regular check and as such is taxed at the 35% rate.
Same as though she had received a promotion and a substantial bump in pay. Her gross wages would IMMEDIATELY be taxed in the higher bracket. There is no graduated rate.
For instance. Let's say a person making $10 a week is taxed at 15%. The next higher bracket is $20 per week. So, let's say the $10 per week earner is given a promotion. His/her salary is now $20 per week. Now he/she will be taxed at the higher bracket for the remainder of that year. The higher rate DOES NOT kick only after the worker has earned a certain amount.  The new rate kicks in immediately.
Same as overtime pay. That is also taxed at a higher rate IF the amount earned places the worker in a higher bracket.
Where you people get your information from is a mystery.
Now, Ii would like to to answer this question. What would raising taxes on high earners do for ANYONE?
Really? How and why would your life get any better is someone earning over $250k is taxed at a higher rate?
Are you people so glued to government that you'd rather see money go to the public sector or where it belongs in the private sector?
Who is a better steward of finances, the government or the people that earn the money?


----------



## Article 15 (Dec 3, 2010)

thereisnospoon said:


> Common Sense said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...




You don't understand how the tax system works.

In your example if the next higher bracket is $20 a week that person is taxed at a 15% rate on all income up until $20.  Income over that $20 is taxed at the next highest rate.  The higher rate doesn't kick in for every dollar earned just those over $20.

Let's pretend that that rate is 20% and the person earns $30 a week.

The first $20 is taxed at 15% or 20 * 0.15 = $3
The next $30 is taxed at 20% or 10 * 0.2 = $2
Total taxes paid on $30 in income = $5 

Now please stop spreading such misinformation.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Dec 3, 2010)

I have a better one.
Reverse the hike given to the IMF to bail out Greece and Ireland.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 3, 2010)

Two Thumbs said:


> Mr. Shaman said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wDdWJcpJj0
> ...


Instead of calling it BS, why don't you refute it with facts?

"debatin' is hard . . . it's hard work" - some NeoCon idiot


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 3, 2010)

Two Thumbs said:


> Mr. Shaman said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wDdWJcpJj0
> ...



Refute it.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 3, 2010)

thereisnospoon said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > We never paid for either war of this decade, nor are we paying for Medicare part D, the prescription drug bill, so,
> ...



The cost of the wars is an irrefutable fact.  They are America's first wars that were not paid for with taxes.

Why do you suppose that is?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 3, 2010)

Zander said:


> Less government by starvation.



That's a popular theory that has never worked.  It's a theory that needs to be thrown out.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 3, 2010)

boedicca said:


> kyzr said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



The couple making 250,000 taxable is not in the top bracket.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 3, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Common Sense said:
> ...



Bullshit!
You are the one who doesn't know what you're talking about.
Explain then how the hell it is when I got my bonus, it is taxed at a higher rate?
Why is it that when OT is paid, it is taxed at a higher rate?
Explain why when one who is eligible for a weekly draw or a lump sum for saved up sick time, they take the weekly draw? I know. Do you?
You are with the rest of them. An agenda of greed. The greed and envy for the accomplishments of others. You are despised by every person who has achieved and succeeded in making their lives better for themselves and their families.
I am sick of you greedy sons of bitches who think you are owed something. Screw you. Go make your own mark. Stop looking to government to accomplish your money grabs for you.
Keep your filthy paws out of my business.

Here ya go smartass..Next time you post, make sure you know what the fuck it is you're talking about.
Tax Bracket 	Married Filing Jointly 	Single
15% Bracket 	$0 &#8211; $70,040 	$0 &#8211; $35,020
28% Bracket 	$70,040 &#8211; $141,419 	$35,020 &#8211; $84,872
31% Bracket 	$141,419 &#8211; $215,528 	$84,872 &#8211; $177,006
36% Bracket 	$215,528 &#8211; $384,860 	$177,006 &#8211; $384,860
39.6% Bracket 	Over $384,860 	Over $384,860
http://www.fivecentnickel.com/2010/02/15/2011-federal-income-tax-brackets-irs-income-tax-rates/

These are tax rates beginning 1/1/2011 should the democrats do the WRONG thing and raise taxes.

I searched the IRS website and there is nothing that agrees with your assertion of a graduated tax rate.


----------



## GHook93 (Dec 3, 2010)

Either $1 mil and below extend or at the very least $750K and below tax cuts extended! They keep saying millionaires well maybe they should mean what they say for once!


----------



## Article 15 (Dec 3, 2010)

thereisnospoon said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



Then you are a retard because the evidence is in your own post.



> Tax Bracket 	Married Filing Jointly 	Single
> 15% Bracket 	$0  $70,040 	$0  $35,020
> 28% Bracket 	$70,040  $141,419 	$35,020  $84,872
> 31% Bracket 	$141,419  $215,528 	$84,872  $177,006
> ...



^------Do you know what this means?


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 3, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > kyzr said:
> ...


Yeah and that a kick in the balls of class envy.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 3, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



asslick,.The tax is deducted with EVERY PAYCHECK..at the percentage of the expected total yearly income.
A $1000 weekly paycheck has deducted from it the tax as though the worker is earning $52,000 per year. Dummy.
You show me where the IRS Tax Code graduates rates. 
Let me make sure I have this correct. 28% bracket Filing single... You say on the first $35,019 is taxed at 15% then each dollar up to $84,872 is taxed at 28%?
Now, you go ahead and show factual data the truth of this.
Good luck. Cuz you won't.


----------



## Article 15 (Dec 3, 2010)

thereisnospoon said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



      

OMFG

So you really don't know!

Here google is your friend.

And one more.

Try squinting when you read about it and just maybe a light will go off.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 3, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



Where's the Tylenol...A person for example in the 28% bracket STILL ends up paying 28% of their income. 
28% of the amount is 28% of the amount.
What's this got to do with the price of curry powder in Mumbai?
The fact is the greedy politicians on the left side of the aisle think they along with those sucking at the taxpayer tit are entitled to as much as they want.
And at what cost? Job loss. Less investment capital. Less for consumer spending.
It has been well established that the federal government is a very poor steward of the people's money.
why you people want to give the DC Bombers more is a mystery.
You certainly won't be getting any of it. So what is your ACTUAL interest in high taxes. Tell the truth.


----------



## Cuyo (Dec 3, 2010)

Revere said:


> No need to compromise with losers who were swept out of power.



Uhh, fraid you might hafta.  The "losers" are still in charge of an overwhelming majority of the government.


----------



## Cuyo (Dec 3, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



Holy shit Art, another one!

How many of you dimwits are out there?

EVERYONE'S subject to the same tax table, whether you make a dollar a year or a billion! The lower brackets are taxed at their respective rates!  The withholdings from your employer are only an estimate.  If you owe less or more, it's reconciled at the end of the year via a tax bill or return.

C'mon, really spoon?  Did you believe that the moment you earn a dollar over any bracket, your entire income is taxed at that bracket?  Is that what you thought?


----------



## Oddball (Dec 4, 2010)

Nosmo King said:


> So, if I understand this predicament, everyone wants the economy chugging along again.  The American consumer and his spending drives the economy.  Some folks still push the tired old trickle down argument that cutting taxes for millionaires and billionaires will stimulate the economy.  Why?  Because those millionaires and billionaires create jobs.
> 
> But then wasn't it consumer spending that drives the economy?  Will those millionaires and billionaires spend their tax cuts and thus stimulate the economy?  And those jobs the rich create, why haven't they created them in America instead of China?
> 
> ...


How about the amazingly simple answer is that it's their money in the first place?





Nosmo King said:


> Screw the rich....


Now, we cut to the nut of the matter...You're just covetous.

Thanks for that brief moment of unintentional candor.


----------



## Nosmo King (Dec 4, 2010)

Oddball said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > So, if I understand this predicament, everyone wants the economy chugging along again.  The American consumer and his spending drives the economy.  Some folks still push the tired old trickle down argument that cutting taxes for millionaires and billionaires will stimulate the economy.  Why?  Because those millionaires and billionaires create jobs.
> ...


is taxation necessary?


----------



## Common Sense (Dec 4, 2010)

```

```



Cuyo said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



If the Bush tax cuts expire, how much more will you have to pay?  The Bone Architect

Tax rates change as your income increase b. Just look at this link


----------



## Oddball (Dec 4, 2010)

Nosmo King said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


Constitutionally lawful imposts excises and duties (i.e. fuel taxes to pay for roads and bridges)?..Yes.

Direct taxes on incomes?...No.

Well, not necessary for funding basic constitutional federal functions, anyways...But absolutely vital for the envy baiting and class warfare tactics of authoritarian political hacks.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 4, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > kyzr said:
> ...




Their marginal tax rate will increase to 36% for Federal, and if in CA, at 10% if the tax cuts expire.

Factor in the loss of deductions from AMT, and they can easily creep up to an marginal combined tax rate of 50%+


----------



## KissMy (Dec 4, 2010)

California has the highest aggregate state tax rate in the nation combining income, property, gasoline & sales taxes. Yet California has the nations largest debt/deficit problem by a magnitude multiple times that of the next worst state. 

In sharp contrast Texas has one of the lowest aggregate state tax rate in the nation combining income, property, gasoline & sales taxes. Yet Texas has the nations lowest debt/deficit problem by a mile compared to the next worst state.

This proves that raising taxes does not decrease debts/deficits & that the Laffer curve has merit.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 4, 2010)

Common Sense said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...


So, someone making *$500,000* per year only has to pay an additional *$7,187*?

Bunch of greedy whiners.


----------



## Revere (Dec 4, 2010)

Government is greedier, and makes far more than that.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 4, 2010)

Oddball said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > So, if I understand this predicament, everyone wants the economy chugging along again.  The American consumer and his spending drives the economy.  Some folks still push the tired old trickle down argument that cutting taxes for millionaires and billionaires will stimulate the economy.  Why?  Because those millionaires and billionaires create jobs.
> ...



Shooting fish in a barrel.
The entire "tax the rich" agenda of the libs is focused on jealousy. Period.
"Screw the rich"....Ask them any question as to why they despise those who they view has "having more than the libs feel is a fair share" and you'll get nothing in substance. 
You'll get the tired lib talking points about federal deficits, how the wealthy "hoard" their money, how it is unfair that poor people are remaining poor while the rich continue to find ways to increase their revenue flow( read rich getting richer....so WHAT!)
No I don't find it alarming that wealthy people are earning more. Nor do I find it alarming that poor people remain poor. 
At the end of the day, the Left sees what others have and they want it. They want it now. This is especially prevalent among younger people. They are not taught the value of hard work. They are taught to complain about that which they do not have and are taught that hard work will get them nowhere. They are taught that those who have success have simply "won the lottery of life"...
Finally the left believes in the zero sum game. Simply put, that there exists in some far off place a magic pile of money. A pie. A place from where the wealthy have unfairly grabbed more than they deserve. That if one has more then another MUST have less.
It's all horse shit.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 4, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> Common Sense said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



That's hardly the point. The issue is, when does it end. How much does government need before they tap out everyone?
I submit that people like you, the ones who demand the largesse of others through political fiat and the threat of government sanctions are the greedy ones.
It is you who are demanding. 
To you and those like you, I say go earn your own money. Get away from the idea that other people's money is your money.
Liberals: "What's mine is mine and what isn't should be."
Oh, as far as your question is concerned...At the end of the year, one winds up paying the US Tax Code mandated percentage of their total income for the year.
This is a bullshit obfuscation argument.
If one's income puts them in the 35% bracket, at the end of the year, they will pay 35% of their total income for that year. DONE!
Now cut the bullshit.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 4, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > No need to compromise with losers who were swept out of power.
> ...


Really? Show us where. Your side LOST the US House. Your side has a slim but not filibuster proof majority in the Senate. That means our side in effect owns the Senate as well because any bullshit the dems try to scam through will be blocked. And before your knee jerks and hits you in the jaw here's the thing. The Founders set up our government this way on purpose. To limit the power of the federal government. Ever wonder why the Upper Chamber has each state EQUALLY represented? Sheesh. You people have no clue or maybe you do. However, you are pros at bitching and whining when things don't go in your favor..Deal with it.
Have you asked yourself why the media and the DC democrat establishment has been bellyaching about bi-partisanship?
Not this time. The GOP tried playing nice nice with the democrats and they got stabbed in the back.
So now you people will just have to step aside. Tough shit.


----------



## Common Sense (Dec 4, 2010)

thereisnospoon said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...



so youre taking the obstructionist role again. if we dont get what we want, you cant get anything either? and you wonder why our government if so messed up right now. this is like a two year throwing a tantrum because they didnt get what they wanted. now im not saying that the dems ideas are full proof or perfect. but what is the rebuttal from the repubs, well i dont like it so we all vote no, no matter what. 

why cant you offer solutions instead of simply no's? 

why couldnt they vote on the tax cuts individually instead of holding everyone hostage. simply hold a vote for the tax cuts on everyone who makes below $250k and then hold a subsequent vote on the cuts for everyone making above $250k. thats a compromise, let the house hold a vote and the senate. what passes passes, and what doesnt doesnt. thats a good bi-partisan agreement. the vote may not be bi-partisan but an agreement to vote on them individually would force the hand of people on both sides of the isle to see whom them really represent and really support. 

this bullshit of Mitch McConnell saying that he will hold up every piece of legislation until the tax cuts is resolved is also akin to a child throwing a tantrum. youre suppose to be an adult, so start acting like one. 

this is whats wrong with the people we send to washington. they dont necessarily represent the people anymore. this is a great reason why we need term limits. we limit the president to a maximum of 2 - 4 years terms. but a senator can be in govt for as long as they get re-elected. that could be upwards of 20-30 years.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 4, 2010)

"Our side", the GOP, is still the minority in the government.

Any other statement is simply stupid.

The GOP wants to keep the rich richer.  The Dems will do that in return for an extension of unemployment benefits and the extension of the nuke treaty.

Who wants to bet that will happen: tit for tat.


----------



## Trajan (Dec 4, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> "Our side", the GOP, is still the minority in the government.
> 
> Any other statement is simply stupid.
> 
> The GOP wants to keep the rich richer.



can you link to that please? 



> The Dems will do that in return for an extension of unemployment benefits and the extension of the nuke treaty.
> 
> Who wants to bet that will happen: tit for tat.




sure thats possible...


----------



## KissMy (Dec 4, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> "Our side", the GOP, is still the minority in the government.
> 
> Any other statement is simply stupid.
> 
> ...



Oh Yea, I am betting big money on it. I am loaded with gold & silver betting their inability to stop the spiraling deficit spending will further trash the dollar. Weakening the dollar is their goal. They believe it will make our goods cheaper overseas to improve our exports. Of course our government is seriously mis-guided. Japan managed to dominate the USA auto manufacturing sector even as the Japanese Yen strengthened 400% against the dollar.


----------



## Care4all (Dec 4, 2010)

thereisnospoon said:


> If one's income puts them in the 35% bracket, at the end of the year, they will pay 35% of their total income for that year. DONE!
> Now cut the bullshit.


FYI
Simply NOT TRUE, spoon.  that is NOT how our tax structure works.  We have a graduated system of income taxes, and after all of your deductions, you pay the income tax rate for your income that falls in to EACH SPECIFIC BRACKET....the first $8300 in taxable income of yours, you pay the 10% rate, for the next amount of income that you make that falls in to the 15% bracket, that is what tax rate you pay for that income, and so on and so forth.

IF you did your own income taxes, you would KNOW this....so I suppose you have either never made enough income to pay and file for your own income taxes or you pay an accountant to do them, either way, your presumption that those that fall in to the 35% tax bracket pay 35% tax on their entire taxable income is FALSE, WRONG, NOT TRUE....the 35% tax rate is paid on ONLY the income made that falls in to that particular tax bracket rate.

So, those couples that make 251,000 bucks of taxable income, they will have a 3.5% tax increase on ONE DOLLAR....so their tax hike will be 3.5 CENTS, if the Bush tax cuts are not let to expire for those couples making $250k or LESS.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 4, 2010)

Care4all, you are correct, of course.  So let the Dems make the Pubs give in on unemployment extensions and nuclear treaty talks in return for extensions of the current tax rate.  That's joint governance, and I am all for it.


----------



## kyzr (Dec 4, 2010)

KissMy said:


> California has the highest aggregate state tax rate in the nation combining income, property, gasoline & sales taxes. Yet California has the nations largest debt/deficit problem by a magnitude multiple times that of the next worst state.
> 
> In sharp contrast Texas has one of the lowest aggregate state tax rate in the nation combining income, property, gasoline & sales taxes. Yet Texas has the nations lowest debt/deficit problem by a mile compared to the next worst state.
> 
> This proves that raising taxes does not decrease debts/deficits & that the Laffer curve has merit.



Total bullshit.  CA is a basket case because of all the socialist spending programs, not because of the tax rates.  If you tax at 1X and spend at 2X like free college tuition, free everything for illegals, etc it does NOT prove that high taxes don't work.

I can point to the Clinton years as the tax rates that are needed to stop deficit spending.  Not the artificially low rates we have now.


----------



## Full-Auto (Dec 4, 2010)

kyzr said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > California has the highest aggregate state tax rate in the nation combining income, property, gasoline & sales taxes. Yet California has the nations largest debt/deficit problem by a magnitude multiple times that of the next worst state.
> ...



I t wasnt th4 tax rates that controlled spending. Enough about the cuts, perhaps you need to reminded that the reason for the dem opposition was because they wanted to spend it.

Even absent that fact the government was still spending SS. So your observation missed a few points.


----------



## kyzr (Dec 4, 2010)

Full-Auto said:


> It wasn't the tax rates that controlled spending. Enough about the cuts, perhaps you need to be reminded that the reason for the dem opposition was because they wanted to spend it.
> 
> Even absent that fact, the government was still spending SS. So your observation missed a few points.



IMHO the Clinton tax rates and the Newt Congress combination was a great combo, just look at the economy during those years compared to the Bush tax-cut years.   Obama's spending needs to be stopped, but if the GOP cuts taxes, cutting spending to just slow the deficit is still a lose-lose option.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 4, 2010)

Common Sense said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



Don't talk to me about bi-partisanship. 
If what you call "obstructionist" is in other words limiting the power of the federal government, so be it.
In as far as term limits, I agree 100%.
Senate two terms. House 6 terms. No pension and a 50% reduction in pay for both.
Citizen legislature. You serve. You go home. The way the Founders planned it.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 4, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> "Our side", the GOP, is still the minority in the government.
> 
> Any other statement is simply stupid.
> 
> ...


Yeah ok jakey..Keep in touch with yourself.
Your insignificant presence here is not required.


----------



## MajinLink (Dec 5, 2010)

The rich really don't need tax cuts. They have destroyed so many jobs so they can become richer. They have increased the national debt so they could become richer. They have denied the children education, the hungry food, and the sick healthcare so they could become richer.


----------



## Care4all (Dec 5, 2010)

MajinLink said:


> The rich really don't need tax cuts. They have destroyed so many jobs so they can become richer. They have increased the national debt so they could become richer. They have denied the children education, the hungry food, and the sick healthcare so they could become richer.



i disagree with that sentiment.

a FEW that are wealthy have done what you stated but for the most part, the rich are not all the wicked witch of the west....

i think many or most, are good intentioned human beings...and probably great philanthropists for many causes!

I don't really think it is the wealthiest that have denied all those things listed either....maybe those on the right who make much much much less than them have argued that the wealthy should not pay for this for others....but the wealthiest that are vocal on the topic never say that from what i've heard.

i don't think the wealthiest in our country are balking on their tax cuts being allowed to expire either....haven't heard one of the top 1% ers, saying such a thing....again, maybe the lower in status than them are arguing such, but i've never heard the actual 1%er doing it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 5, 2010)

thereisnospoon said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > "Our side", the GOP, is still the minority in the government.
> ...



My presence is required to offset inane comments by folks like you.  You will see the compromise by the end of next week.  Fiscal sanity requires, however, cutting spending in major programs: an increase in retirement age and means testing for all recipients in Social Security; a 15 to 25% reduction in Defense spending over the next decade and spreading contracts across the country as much as possible.  Term limits.  No pensions.


----------



## kyzr (Dec 5, 2010)

That the DC clowns are even considering borrowing to give tax cuts, AFTER 8-years of demonstrating that the tax cuts had a terrible effect on job creation and the economy overall is moronic.
They desperately need a Plan-B....how about a balanced budget amendment??


----------



## Full-Auto (Dec 5, 2010)

kyzr said:


> That the DC clowns are even considering borrowing to give tax cuts, AFTER 8-years of demonstrating that the tax cuts had a terrible effect on job creation and the economy overall is moronic.
> They desperately need a Plan-B....how about a balanced budget amendment??



Oh brother, another simple mind thatt hinks the economy can be explained by tax cuts alone.


----------



## kyzr (Dec 5, 2010)

Full-Auto said:


> kyzr said:
> 
> 
> > That the DC clowns are even considering borrowing to give tax cuts, AFTER 8-years of demonstrating that the tax cuts had a terrible effect on job creation and the economy overall is moronic.
> ...



I can point to the Clinton/Newt era when 22m jobs were created, and to the Bush era where 22m jobs were lost.  Its not rocket science, its what was proven to work or keeping what was proven not to work.  Simple-minded or not, you can't prove that borrowing from China to give tax cuts is anything but disastrous.


----------



## Full-Auto (Dec 5, 2010)

kyzr said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> > kyzr said:
> ...



And???????????????????????????????

My only opposition to your post was your description of the economy.  If its as simple as you say, why are you not taxing us to prosperity. All you have to do is raise taxes.

Then you can bich about the overseas movement.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 5, 2010)

Full-Auto said:


> kyzr said:
> 
> 
> > Full-Auto said:
> ...



Now that comment is both simplistic and uninformed.


----------



## Full-Auto (Dec 5, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> > kyzr said:
> ...



Another simpleton.

I guess you would describe all aspects of the economies working or failing on tax rates alone.

Fruit loop


----------



## Big Black Dog (Dec 5, 2010)

MajinLink said:


> The rich really don't need tax cuts. They have destroyed so many jobs so they can become richer. They have increased the national debt so they could become richer. They have denied the children education, the hungry food, and the sick healthcare so they could become richer.



Sounds like you bought the liberal horseshit hook, line and sinker...


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 5, 2010)

MajinLink said:


> The rich really don't need tax cuts. They have destroyed so many jobs so they can become richer. They have increased the national debt so they could become richer. They have denied the children education, the hungry food, and the sick healthcare so they could become richer.



Who the hell are you to think that YOU get to decide how much is "enough"?
How about this. Let's have the government pass a law that says no one may have more than $100,000 in total assets?...
Why not have a government mandated cap of $50,000 per year in annual income?
You people are a miracle.
You amaze in that you point fingers at others who just so happen to have exceeded some magic threshold of wealth and label them as greedy.
What about YOU?...
Is $100,000 per year rich?
Ok fine. How about the guy that works a union job for example. He worked 20 years for the New York City Dept of Corrections. He told me his salary was almost $100,000 per year and that was before the OT he worked.
Now, is that RICH?...Is that "too much"? Is it beyond your comfort zone? Or does he get a hall pass because he is a union guy? But the white collar worker in the  next building makes the EXACT amount if money the union guy did get labeled an Evil rich guy"?
I cannot wait for your response.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 5, 2010)

Care4all said:


> MajinLink said:
> 
> 
> > The rich really don't need tax cuts. They have destroyed so many jobs so they can become richer. They have increased the national debt so they could become richer. They have denied the children education, the hungry food, and the sick healthcare so they could become richer.
> ...




Agreed, with a modification.

The top 1% begins at an income level below $400,000.  Quite a few of the 1%ers have far more in common with the broader middle class (have to work for a living, a mortgage to service, kids educations to fund, retirement funds to save) than the teensy peak of mega millionaires and billionaires.

To lump an attorney married to a CPA together with Bill Gates and Warren Buffett is nonsense.


----------



## Nosmo King (Dec 5, 2010)

thereisnospoon said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


I'm not for taxing the rich because of emotion.  I'm for taxing teh rich because giving those who need it least a 780 billion dollar break is not good fiscal policy.  

In my post, I outlined how consumer spending drives the economy.  How getting the most money into the most hands will propel this economy.  How giving the few the biggest break just does not work out that well, fiscally speaking.

Then your post goes on to tell me and others what I think according to the ideology you subscribe to.  Well, that's driving the argument with emotion rather than logic.

Regroup (as the great thinker Palin says) reload and try again.  This time without the lopsided projections about what I may or may not think.  Try arguing against the middle class consumer and his power to move capital from hand to hand.  We know how giving the top moneymakers more money works, and it's feeble and ineffective.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 5, 2010)

Big Black Dog said:


> MajinLink said:
> 
> 
> > The rich really don't need tax cuts. They have destroyed so many jobs so they can become richer. They have increased the national debt so they could become richer. They have denied the children education, the hungry food, and the sick healthcare so they could become richer.
> ...



Hope you have not bought the far right reactionary (pretend conservative) nonsense.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Dec 5, 2010)

MajinLink said:


> The rich really don't need tax cuts. They have destroyed so many jobs so they can become richer. They have increased the national debt so they could become richer. They have denied the children education, the hungry food, and the sick healthcare so they could become richer.



I don't know of anybody wealthy who has denied children education, hungry people food, or sick people health care.  If you have to lie to make your point, you probably don't have much of a point to begin with.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 5, 2010)

Privatization of orphan and foster care that has victimized the weakest in our country, the reduction of arts and music and physical education for high stakes testing that has made our education weak in comparison with the rest of the industrialized world, and the antics of the health insurance crime cartel in this country that has led to the USA being in the lower group of 11 to 20 among industrialized countries ~~ all has become a fact of our lives since 1980.  The rich and want to be rich victimize the weakest in our country for profit.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 5, 2010)

Nosmo King said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


Pure, unadulterated bullshit.

The very notion that people being allowed to keep more of what's theirs to begin with belies your underlying envy and covetousness.

Who died and made you the arbiter of who needs the fruits of their labors and who doesn't, anyways?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 5, 2010)

OddOne lives in a society with laws and a social compact, and he whines like a little girl.


----------



## Nosmo King (Dec 5, 2010)

Oddball said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...


Is it necessary  to levy taxes?


----------



## Oddball (Dec 5, 2010)

I've already answered that question.

Scroll back through the thread, lazy ass.


----------



## Nosmo King (Dec 5, 2010)

Oddball said:


> I've already answered that question.
> 
> Scroll back through the thread, lazy ass.


So you don't think income taxes are necessary.  Good luck with that deficit stuff.

Reasonable and responsible posters may reply.  This moron oddball does not qualify as either.

Time for the grownups to talk.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 5, 2010)

The deficit has been caused by excessive spending, not lack of shaking down the citizenry.

If you're fool enough think you can tax your way out of this mess, you're not one of the grownups, sonny.


----------



## Article 15 (Dec 5, 2010)

Oddball said:


> The deficit has been caused by excessive spending, not lack of shaking down the citizenry.
> 
> If you're fool enough think you can tax your way out of this mess, you're not one of the grownups, sonny.



If his solution were to just raise taxes you would have a point.

Personally, I think anyone who thinks we can just tax our way out of this is just as foolish and naive as the person who thinks we can just spend cut our way out of it.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 6, 2010)

The_* only*_ way out is to gut the hell out of spending.

From federal to state to local taxes, "fees", fines, inflation (which is itself a hidden tax), ad nauseum, Americans are being bilked all the way to the poor house.

It's high time the moocher class (which includes the scads of bureaucrats and officers who are harassing us and eating out our substance) got the hell out of the wagon and started pulling  _*their*_ *ahem* fair share of the load.


----------



## Nosmo King (Dec 6, 2010)

Oddball said:


> The deficit has been caused by excessive spending, not lack of shaking down the citizenry.
> 
> If you're fool enough think you can tax your way out of this mess, you're not one of the grownups, sonny.


The topic is tax cuts, not revamping the economic system of the United States to something just like they had in 1910.

Whenever you lose an argument (which is often) you restructure the argument.  You cannot argue against giving the biggest breaks to the most people, so you argue against taxation altogether.

If I made that my habit, I'd be ashamed.


----------



## Full-Auto (Dec 6, 2010)

I'm not for taxing the rich because of emotion. I'm for taxing teh rich because giving those who need it least a 780 billion dollar break is not good fiscal policy

So giving away 3.2 trillion is good fiscal policy?


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Dec 6, 2010)

kyzr said:


> The GOP presented a letter to Harry Reid saying that they want ALL tax cuts extended for all incomes, or they will filibuster everything.
> 
> OK.  Make my day.  No tax cut extensions, period.  Thanks GOP.
> 
> [actually the tax cuts are not detectable for those under $250k anyway]



Actually my tax rate is set to go up by 3% when the tax cuts expire.  I make under $100,000/year and with inflation due to Obama's and Bush's monetary policies I already feel like I have gotten a pay cut over the last 2 years.   This tax increase on my 5 figure income will make me even poorer than I am now.


And I approve of extending all the tax cuts for everyone, including my "rich" small business employer.

I also dissaprove of the Obama Admin's latest tactic of saying "We will extend all the cuts if you put an unemployment benefit extention into the bill"  I dissaprove because that would not be funding the extention with existing funds and revenue but be borrowing to "finance" that extention which the country can no longer afford to do.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 6, 2010)

What I don't like about this debate is that congress has once again created a debate that prevents people from taking a hard look at government. Look at the big picture. We are essentially arguing over when the tax burden will increase and for who. Well shouldn't we be focusing on the premise first? Doesn't the fact that government is debating over when to give itself more money presume that government actually does need more money? Well, do they?

The debate over taxes needs to shift to what does government really need and not automatically jumping to who should pay and how much.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 6, 2010)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> kyzr said:
> 
> 
> > The GOP presented a letter to Harry Reid saying that they want ALL tax cuts extended for all incomes, or they will filibuster everything.
> ...



What inflation?


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 6, 2010)

Full-Auto said:


> I'm not for taxing the rich because of emotion. I'm for taxing teh rich because giving those who need it least a 780 billion dollar break is not good fiscal policy
> 
> So giving away 3.2 trillion is good fiscal policy?


Here we go with the "need" argument.
It is not our business to determine "need" regarding wealth or income.
To make that judgement one must set a standard or a limit of wealth or income.
To simply state "need" is a fail because that is a subjective observation.
The reason why those who pay the most get the largest tax break is simple. The highest earners have contributed the majority of the revenue.
The straw man argument against wealth or living wealthy is based solely on jealousy and envy.
Once again, in most arguments against reducing taxes on the highest earners is not based on the theory of lerger revenues for government. It is based on the theory of "getting even" or admistering punishment to those who others view as "having enough' or having "more than their 'fair share' of the economic pie."
In any event the argument is junk.
No additional taxation of the producers is going to matter a hill of beans to the less fortunate.
There seems to be a perception that if government absconds with more , that money will be available for transfer payments. That's completely false.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 6, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > kyzr said:
> ...



You don't get out much ,do you?
Have you not noticed rising energy and fuel prices?
Gas is up 20 cents per gallon since mid November.
Milk is up to $3.50 from the high 2's.
Inflation is occurring due to the dollar's weakness in the currency markets.
This weakness is caused by the Obama admin's deficit spending and the decision by the federal reserve to pump money into the stock markets. In order to do this, the federal reserve must print more currency. This crates more supply of dollars and thus the dollar becomes worth less.
The price of oil on the commodities exchanges is based on US Dollars. 
Over the last 6-8 weeks the price of a barrel of oil has increased from about $72 per barrel to over $87 per barrel. The wholesale price of unleaded regular has jumped from $2.05 per gallon to nearly $2.40 per gallon. THAT is inflation. Why is this described as inflation? Simple. This is a low point of fuel consumption throughout the year. In fact demand is down significantly from last year, yet the price of gas is nearly 80 cents higher than one year ago. Despite lower demand, prices continue to rise. This is due to inflation.
Oh, and when the price of fuel increases so do the costs of manufacturing and shipping. Hence, consumer prices for most goods increase as well. Inflation.
FYI as I write this the NY Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) price for a barrel of oil is $88.94....NYMEX gasoline is at $2.33 per gallon.


----------



## Nosmo King (Dec 6, 2010)

thereisnospoon said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...


What is the current rate of inflation?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 6, 2010)

kyzr said:


> [actually the tax cuts are not detectable for those under $250k anyway]


Really?  According to whom?
-MY- taxes will go up $300/mo and I dont make anywhere near $250k.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 6, 2010)

thereisnospoon said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



Inflation for the last reporting quarter was .9 of 1%.  Use of selective facts makes you look dishonest as well as moronic to those who know the numbers.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 6, 2010)

thereisnospoon said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...


That's not inflation, dope.


----------



## Cuyo (Dec 6, 2010)

thereisnospoon said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



Based on your response, I don't think you know what "inflation" is.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 6, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



What difference does some convoluted government figure have to do with the fact that consumer prices are rising due to government and White House policies.
AT the end of the day, our money is not going as far as it did a year ago.
Now, if you want to debate the annual rate of inflation, go waste someone else's time.
We are paying more for consumables and energy than we were a year ago.
DO you think the person filling their gas tank or the person buying groceries gives a rat's ass about the official rate of inflation?
I could imagine this thought....."Wow, my grocery bill was $150 this week! Just last year I was spending $130. Oh but it's ok. Some guy in Washington just announced the annual rate of inflation is 2%. Gee I feel better now"..
Give me a huge friggin break.
Hey sunshine....Spin doesn't work here


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 6, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Dope? 
Yer done. You don't know shit.
This is typical of you lefties. Out of touch with issues that the average person actually cares about. Do you really think the couple sitting down for an evening meal give a shit about the rate of inflation?...They care about how far their paycheck gets them each week.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 7, 2010)

thereisnospoon said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...


Then call it what it is, and not inflation.  So many goods fluctuate in price solely based on oil prices.  Oil prices largely fluctuate due to speculation.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 7, 2010)

Thereisnospoon is trying the same nonsense of misdefinition in another thread and getting his wings pulled off there as well.

Any times the far right wacks start screaming "liberals", you know they are losing again.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 7, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


No. That is not accurate.
You will not be permitted to simply dismiss the latest rise in energy prices by labeling it "speculation".
Market forces dictate the rise and fall of prices.
Put yourself in the investor's shoes. If your next meal came from a good trade and you lost that meal from a bad one, what would you advise your clients to do? Oh, don't worry about the falling dollar and sit chilly? No. Of course not.
The trader knows he or she must bid up the price to remain in the black.
Look, you people are not paying attention in class.
This administration's fiscal policies are directly responsible for the devaluation of the US Dollar. Borrowing money that has little hope of ever being paid back and the printing of new currency( thus increasing the money supply) reduces the value of the dollar.
That in and of itself is inflationary.
Simply dismissing the result by using buzzwords such as "speculation" is disingenuous.
Now, do you think you can reply without the insults? I am interested in continuing this debate in a civil manner. Let's try that, shall we?


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 7, 2010)

thereisnospoon said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



This latest round is due to the holidays.  Oil prices always rise before Thanksgiving, Easter, Memorial Day, July 4th, Labor Day.  That's when people travel.

We are in more danger of deflation than inflation.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Dec 7, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > kyzr said:
> ...



Everything from clothing to food to feul has increased over 10% on me in the last 2-3 years. 

Do you not shop for yourself?


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 7, 2010)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...


Geez, another one.

That's not inflation.  Learn what inflation is, then come back to this thread, armed with knowledge you previously did not possess.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Dec 7, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Rising prices are the result of inflation you silly goose.

Inflation is caused by adding more money into circulation in relation to goods and services which has been done by our printing of money and more recently by the printing of additional 500billion to 1 trillion to pay debts.

I have a BBA and know full well what inflation is.

Instead of deflecting away from my accurate assesment with false claims of superior knowledge why don't you just own up to the fact that you were intially wrong and now understand that the rising prices are a result of inflation.   I wont hold it against you.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 7, 2010)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...


What is the current rate of inflation?


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Dec 7, 2010)

From 2007 to 2010 it averaged 5.5%

Some goods, such as clothing, food, and fuel have seen a larger inflation number while other goods such as furnishings, automobiles, and manufacturing equipment have stayed steady or even declined.

keep trying..........


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 7, 2010)

Plymco, give us some links, please.  I read a couple of months ago that the last quarterly average was .9 of 1%.


----------



## Spoonman (Dec 7, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> "Our side", the GOP, is still the minority in the government.
> 
> Any other statement is simply stupid.
> 
> ...


The dems have to extend the unemployment benefits because they couldn't fix the economy. Just another bandaid attempt on there part.


----------



## Spoonman (Dec 7, 2010)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...


Healthcare has certainly gotten more expensive since we got Obamacare


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Dec 7, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Plymco, give us some links, please.  I read a couple of months ago that the last quarterly average was .9 of 1%.



Yes last year had low inflation.  But something that cost me $100.00 in 2007, adjusted for the average inflation of all goods and services, would be $105.50.

That includes housing prices which have dropped off a cliff in the last few years, most notably in 2009, having a HUGE impact on the overall inflation numbers...in fact it almost led to deflation in 09.    

Other goods such as gasoline have experienced 15% inflation since then.  Cloathing about 10%  Food about 8%.

Here is an interesting site for you Consumer Price Index (CPI)  check out the CPI reports.  You'll see what I see.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Dec 7, 2010)

Spoonman said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Yeah that has gone up too, thanks for reminding me.  I now pay $47/week instead of $39....thats a big jump.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 7, 2010)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Plymco, give us some links, please.  I read a couple of months ago that the last quarterly average was .9 of 1%.
> ...



OK, you can't show us that inflation is going up.  Thanks.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Dec 7, 2010)

About 2% inflation a year is considered favorable.


----------



## EriktheRed (Dec 7, 2010)

Revere said:


> The Dems can't stop spending. It should be saddled on them.



Medicare Part D, anyone?


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 7, 2010)

Spoonman said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


It hasn't kicked in yet.  That's just the free market gouging you again.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 7, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Amazing, isn't it?


----------



## Revere (Dec 7, 2010)

Health care is unregulated?  A free market?


----------



## Revere (Dec 7, 2010)

EriktheRed said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > The Dems can't stop spending. It should be saddled on them.
> ...



Bush's deficits were in decline until Democrats controlled Congress in 2007.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 7, 2010)

Revere said:


> Health care is unregulated?  A free market?


Are they allowed to arbitrarily raise your rates without going before a regulatory agency for permission first?


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 7, 2010)

Revere said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...


Wrong.  And you know it's wrong.


----------



## Revere (Dec 7, 2010)

There are no regulatory agencies from whom health insurers must get permission to raise rates?


----------



## Revere (Dec 7, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > EriktheRed said:
> ...



No.

Look at 2005, 2006, and 2007.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 7, 2010)

Revere said:


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


That doesn't include the two wars and the Medicare D.


----------



## Revere (Dec 7, 2010)

Those costs were the same for Bush as they were for Obama.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 8, 2010)

The Republicans put us in this hole by trying to fight two wars and cut government income at the same time. Both foolish and stupid. Now they are trying to shift the blame for the results. And, once again, trying to cut government income, while not addressing spending. 

Come on, people, do you think that all the infrastructure in this nation is free? That the military that protects us has no cost? That the people that have worked all their lives deserve nothing in return?

The fiscally sane thing to do is to let the tax cuts expire, and then start closing loopholes for both individuals and corperations.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 8, 2010)

The Republicans put us in this hole by trying to fight two wars and cut government income at the same time. Both foolish and stupid. Now they are trying to shift the blame for the results. And, once again, trying to cut government income, while not addressing spending. 

Come on, people, do you think that all the infrastructure in this nation is free? That the military that protects us has no cost? That the people that have worked all their lives deserve nothing in return?

The fiscally sane thing to do is to let the tax cuts expire, and then start closing loopholes for both individuals and corperations.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 8, 2010)

Revere said:


> Those costs were the same for Bush as they were for Obama.



Obama accounts for all of that in the budget.  Bush ducked it, just as you are doing.  You are dishonest, but then, you always have been a man without honor here.


----------



## saveliberty (Dec 8, 2010)

Equality for all!  Unless your a Democrat, who wants to not pay taxes, by shifting the burden to others.  Your OP is wrong to begin with.  You don't get a tax cut, if you are below the threshhold for paying.

Just how long are we supposed to pay for people who haven't found work in two years?


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Dec 8, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > Health care is unregulated?  A free market?
> ...



In some states they are, some they are not.

And no, health care is not a free market in this country.  It is nowhere remotely close and hasn't been for decades.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 9, 2010)

EriktheRed said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > The Dems can't stop spending. It should be saddled on them.
> ...


That was stolen lock, stock and barrel from the dems, to take the issue off the table.

That neocon repubs are spendaholics is no news flash.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 9, 2010)

Personally, I'm really enjoying Obama lecture the country about how extending the tax cuts are now necessary to prevent a double dip recession (although if he really believed that, the extension would be permanent).


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 9, 2010)

boedicca said:


> Personally, I'm really enjoying Obama lecture the country about how extending the tax cuts are now necessary to prevent a double dip recession (although if he really believed that, the extension would be permanent).


Not just tax cuts, but the BUSH tax cuts.
You know -- the ones we were told that we just for the rich.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 9, 2010)

Nosmo King said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > The deficit has been caused by excessive spending, not lack of shaking down the citizenry.
> ...


HA!..._*You're*_ the dweeb who asked whether or not I thought anyone should have their incomes taxed....If anyone has reframed the argument here, it's you....If anyone should be ashamed for such a flaccid projection, it's you.

There are no tax cuts currently on the table...In fact, the current stupid "deal" involves a tax _*increase*_, with the reinstatement of the grave robbery that is the death tax.

All that's being argued here, as it relates to income tax rates, is the continuance of the status quo.


----------



## onecut39 (Dec 9, 2010)

Revere said:


> Obama went on the biggest spending binge in the history of the world for two years without raising income taxes.
> 
> It's not the tax revenue.



Not true.  Bush passed two income tax reductions and a "prebate" all while fighting two unfunded wars.  A first in american history.

Bush ran up about 6 trillion in debt and in his final year left us with a deficit of well over a trillion dollars, perhaps as much as 1.5 trillion.

In fact Bush more than doubled the debt of all other presidents in our history.  All with GOP approval of course.

"Fiscal conservatives".  That is enough to bring down the house with hysterical laughter.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 9, 2010)

onecut39 said:


> Not true.  Bush passed two income tax reductions and a "prebate" all while fighting two unfunded wars.  A first in american history.


False.  
The 2001 tax cut was passed pre-9-11.


> Bush ran up about 6 trillion in debt...


False.
National  debt 1-20-2001....$5,728B
National debt 1-20-2009....$10,626B  = $4,898B 
National debt now:............$13,846B = $3,220B
So...  in 2 years, The Obama ran up *65%* of GWB's 8-year debt.


> In fact Bush more than doubled the debt of all other presidents in our history.  All with GOP approval of course.


False. 
As demostrated above, as well as...
FY2008 FY2009
Both budgets - those with the largest deficits -  passed by a Dem-controlled Congress.


> "Fiscal conservatives".  That is enough to bring down the house with hysterical laughter.


The true humor comes from the fact that nothing you said has any basis in fact.
But, that's what happens when your grasp of the subject is limited to the talking points you found in a DNC e-mail.

If you cannot get the basic facts, straight, why should we take seriously anything else you might say?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 9, 2010)

Bush signed the budgets; he gets the responsibility right along with the congresses from 2001.


----------



## saveliberty (Dec 9, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Bush signed the budgets; he gets the responsibility right along with the congresses from 2001.



...and if he didn't signed it...

it would become law anyways.

I guess he could have vetoed it, but then Congress could override that.

You do have a point to your post right?


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 9, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Bush signed the budgets; he gets the responsibility right along with the congresses from 2001.
> ...



There weren't enough votes for that.  Bush could have vetoed.  But he didn't want to.  He was about to go on a spending spree himself and didn't want to alienate the people with the checkbook, so he let them spend right along with him.

Republicans will run Washington like a business - Ha!  Bunch of bullshit.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 9, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Bush signed the budgets; he gets the responsibility right along with the congresses from 2001.
> ...



Yeah.  Bush's veto would have easily stood.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Dec 9, 2010)

Nosmo King said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > No need to compromise with losers who were swept out of power.
> ...


Why not? Pelosi is doing it. It is the dimwits that are the problem.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Dec 9, 2010)

Nosmo King said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...


Take your own advice idiot. Two wars under Bush and he still didn't spend as much in 8 yrs as obama has in two years. Dimwits are stupid.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 9, 2010)

AmericanFirst said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...



You are as dim as your opponents, FirstDimWit.  Give us the stats, or shut up.


----------



## saveliberty (Dec 9, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



You have no proof just an opinion.  Most of America expected the President to attack the terrorist strongholds and Congress almost universally agreed.


----------

