? For liberals: If taxes go up on rich, how will you feel about consequences?

[NYcarbineer]

A balanced budget is based on revenues equaling spending. If you reduce revenues and don't reduce spending, your budget goes into deficit.

If you support extending the tax cuts without accompanying spending cuts, you are supporting increasing the deficit. It is NOT any more complicated than that.

You're right. I support cutting spending. Do you? I mean, other than just defense?

I support across the board cuts. I've said that for a long time.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The Bush tax cuts. If they expire, massive tax hikes on rich people and rich companies will ensue.

Liberals: If you are at work in January, for a wealthy company or wealthy boss, and you the Bush cuts to expire as Obama wants, how will you feel if you get called into the office and told:


"Since Washington let the tax cuts expire, we can't afford the staff your division as is. 40% of you will be laid off. It will be a randomly selected group. You'll know within 2 weeks."

If you lose your job due to Obama allowing the companies and rich people to get their taxes hiked, how will you feel? Or, what if you come to work after watching MSNBC applaud Obama no longer allowing tax breaks for the rich, and find out your best friend at work got laid off, because it turns out the Bush tax cuts allowed enough capital for that company to expand your division 6 years ago and hire both of you, but now they cant afford you both and one has to go?????

Never forget, as much as you lefties hate the rich and hate corporations, they provide the jobs in this country. If you want a good paying, stable job, most likely it's gonna be working for a rich person or company. Thats reality, and I'm thankful for the rich who have employed me and don't want their taxes to go up, because the more money they send to Washington DC, the less money they send to their employees.

I spoke with a guy yesterday who told his staff that he will only be paying 15% of their HC starting Sept. 1. He was paying 100%. I asked him how he thought the HC bill was going to affect him and he said "I don't know. My accountant does not know. No one knows. The bill is 2000 pages". But with the economy in the toilet, it was that or lay off more people.

With or without the tax cuts, this is going to be the new reality. Change we can believe in?

Gee, I spoke with a guy whose ex-wife's current boyfriend was told by his mother that her hairdresser said if the Bush tax cuts expire she'll close up shop and go on welfare. So we must all be scared, the consequences of paying more taxes, or any taxes, will surely cause the sky to fall and the (Commies, Muslims, Gays, etc. etc.) will take over the world.

 

[daveman]

so... I guess that you are not concerned about the deficit either. And I really think you should go back and read up on how the republicans used that currently onerous procedure called reconciliation to pass the Bush tax cuts and what they had to do to them in order to get them to pass in that manner. Let me know when you're up to speed on that.

Yes, I'm concerned about the deficit. Serious cuts need to be made in spending. But the Democrats are never going to go along with cutting their vote-buying schemes.

And any time you'd like to be consistent in your criticism of procedural changes to ram through agendas, that'd be great.

look. I have never criticized the republican's use of reconciliation to pass Bush's tax cuts. I only note that they did in fact use that procedural rule... the process has a rule that is maybe twenty-five years old called the Byrd rule that requires that any bill passed by the budget reconciliation process could NOT impact government revenues beyond ten years... and THAT is why this tax cut is expiring. Republicans were willing to get tax cuts for the wealthy even when they knew they HAD to make them go away in ten years. It had nothing to do with what their crystal balls had to say about the future of the american economy. It had to do with them only having 51 votes. I think it is hilarious that the GOP was so upset that Obama considered using reconciliation to get helath care for americans, but they were perfectly willing to use reconciliation to get tax cuts for millionaires that ballooned the deficit.

Ummm...I'm not a millionaire, and I got a tax cut. So did you.

 

[daveman]

If the median income of the 118 million Americans who earn enough to pay income taxes is about $50,000/year, and the richest 10 thousand Americans average $50,000,000/year and pay just over 20% of their income in taxes, do you see how foot-ware, not to mention galoshes, might be a luxury for many workers, Comrade?

America is 234 Years Old

So you want someone to buy your shoes for you.

What a lazy piece of shit. Get to work, slacker. Nobody owes you anything.

 

[Wry Catcher]

A balanced budget is based on revenues equaling spending. If you reduce revenues and don't reduce spending, your budget goes into deficit.

If you support extending the tax cuts without accompanying spending cuts, you are supporting increasing the deficit. It is NOT any more complicated than that.

You're right. I support cutting spending. Do you? I mean, other than just defense?

I support across the board cuts. I've said that for a long time.

Obviously spending cuts across the board have unintended consequences. Most of the 'ideas' floated by would-be policy makers (and even some actual policy makers) are nothing more than mental masturbation based on too few facts and too little critical thought.
Consensus on priorities must be established and that has become nearly impossible as politics in America became toxic. When Ideology replaces reason and pragmatic solutions are ignored because they coflict with the current dogma we are left with paralysis and populist bull shit.

 

[maineman]

Yes, I'm concerned about the deficit. Serious cuts need to be made in spending. But the Democrats are never going to go along with cutting their vote-buying schemes.

And any time you'd like to be consistent in your criticism of procedural changes to ram through agendas, that'd be great.

look. I have never criticized the republican's use of reconciliation to pass Bush's tax cuts. I only note that they did in fact use that procedural rule... the process has a rule that is maybe twenty-five years old called the Byrd rule that requires that any bill passed by the budget reconciliation process could NOT impact government revenues beyond ten years... and THAT is why this tax cut is expiring. Republicans were willing to get tax cuts for the wealthy even when they knew they HAD to make them go away in ten years. It had nothing to do with what their crystal balls had to say about the future of the american economy. It had to do with them only having 51 votes. I think it is hilarious that the GOP was so upset that Obama considered using reconciliation to get helath care for americans, but they were perfectly willing to use reconciliation to get tax cuts for millionaires that ballooned the deficit.

Ummm...I'm not a millionaire, and I got a tax cut. So did you.

nice avoidance of the point. I KNEW you wouldn't honestly discuss it.

 

[JBeukema]

A balanced budget is based on revenues equaling spending. If you reduce revenues and don't reduce spending, your budget goes into deficit.

If you support extending the tax cuts without accompanying spending cuts, you are supporting increasing the deficit. It is NOT any more complicated than that.

Unless, you know, you also advocate cutting spending...

 

[JBeukema]

so... I guess that you are not concerned about the deficit either. And I really think you should go back and read up on how the republicans used that currently onerous procedure called reconciliation to pass the Bush tax cuts and what they had to do to them in order to get them to pass in that manner. Let me know when you're up to speed on that.

Yes, I'm concerned about the deficit. Serious cuts need to be made in spending. But the Democrats are never going to go along with cutting their vote-buying schemes.

And any time you'd like to be consistent in your criticism of procedural changes to ram through agendas, that'd be great.

yes, because it's only the Democrats who are the problem when it comes to government waste, earmarks, and general fiscal lunacy - nope, not a bipartisan screwjob at all

 

[daveman]

look. I have never criticized the republican's use of reconciliation to pass Bush's tax cuts. I only note that they did in fact use that procedural rule... the process has a rule that is maybe twenty-five years old called the Byrd rule that requires that any bill passed by the budget reconciliation process could NOT impact government revenues beyond ten years... and THAT is why this tax cut is expiring. Republicans were willing to get tax cuts for the wealthy even when they knew they HAD to make them go away in ten years. It had nothing to do with what their crystal balls had to say about the future of the american economy. It had to do with them only having 51 votes. I think it is hilarious that the GOP was so upset that Obama considered using reconciliation to get helath care for americans, but they were perfectly willing to use reconciliation to get tax cuts for millionaires that ballooned the deficit.

Ummm...I'm not a millionaire, and I got a tax cut. So did you.

nice avoidance of the point. I KNEW you wouldn't honestly discuss it.

Actually, considering your point is based on a falsehood (tax cuts for the rich!!1111), it's not avoidance.

Plus, your condemnation of the GOP for using the rules to pass legislation while giving Democratics a pass for using the same rules is amusing.

 

[daveman]

so... I guess that you are not concerned about the deficit either. And I really think you should go back and read up on how the republicans used that currently onerous procedure called reconciliation to pass the Bush tax cuts and what they had to do to them in order to get them to pass in that manner. Let me know when you're up to speed on that.

Yes, I'm concerned about the deficit. Serious cuts need to be made in spending. But the Democrats are never going to go along with cutting their vote-buying schemes.

And any time you'd like to be consistent in your criticism of procedural changes to ram through agendas, that'd be great.

yes, because it's only the Democrats who are the problem when it comes to government waste, earmarks, and general fiscal lunacy - nope, not a bipartisan screwjob at all

Never said that, did I? Part of the reason we're in the mess we're in is the GOP moved to the left fiscally. That's always a disaster.

 

[maineman]

Ummm...I'm not a millionaire, and I got a tax cut. So did you.

nice avoidance of the point. I KNEW you wouldn't honestly discuss it.

Actually, considering your point is based on a falsehood (tax cuts for the rich!!1111), it's not avoidance.

Plus, your condemnation of the GOP for using the rules to pass legislation while giving Democratics a pass for using the same rules is amusing.

Where did I condemn the GOP for using reconciliation? I never did. That makes you a liar. no big surprise there. They used it because they had the power to use it and I had no problem with them doing so....but the POINT was that your suggestion that the republicans couldn't predict the present economic mess and THAT is why they built in the ten year expiration is patently false... and you do not have the honor to admit it. Reconciliation REQUIRED it... and they were willing to build in the expiration in order to pass the bill with 51 votes. Now they want to disregard those rules that govern the use of reconciliation... just a few short months after they were appalled that Obama would even CONSIDER using reconciliation for health care. fucking hypocrites.

 

[daveman]

nice avoidance of the point. I KNEW you wouldn't honestly discuss it.

Actually, considering your point is based on a falsehood (tax cuts for the rich!!1111), it's not avoidance.

Plus, your condemnation of the GOP for using the rules to pass legislation while giving Democratics a pass for using the same rules is amusing.

Where did I condemn the GOP for using reconciliation? I never did. That makes you a liar. no big surprise there. They used it because they had the power to use it and I had no problem with them doing so....but the POINT was that your suggestion that the republicans couldn't predict the present economic mess and THAT is why they built in the ten year expiration is patently false... and you do not have the honor to admit it. Reconciliation REQUIRED it... and they were willing to build in the expiration in order to pass the bill with 51 votes. Now they want to disregard those rules that govern the use of reconciliation... just a few short months after they were appalled that Obama would even CONSIDER using reconciliation for health care. fucking hypocrites.

And you're bitching about me complaining about the Dems using reconciliation. Where did I do that, exactly?

Oh, that's right. I didn't. Guess that makes YOU a liar, using your own standards. Or do they not apply to you?

 

[maineman]

Let's have a brief review, shall we?

Quit running away from the FACT that YOUR party planned for this tax cut to expire because they KNEW what extending it would do to the deficit. Be a man and own up to that. Be a man and admit that this was planned by YOUR party a decade ago.

Did it ever occur to you that they thought the economy was going to have sufficiently improved by now that it could handle the extra tax burden without undue stress? That they didn't know Bush was going to jack up the deficit, and Obama even worse?

No, I bet it didn't. You just want to think...sorry, feel...that the GOP did this malevolently. Your bigotry against conservatives will allow no less.

I really think you should go back and read up on how the republicans used that currently onerous procedure called reconciliation to pass the Bush tax cuts and what they had to do to them in order to get them to pass in that manner. Let me know when you're up to speed on that.

And any time you'd like to be consistent in your criticism of procedural changes to ram through agendas, that'd be great.

look. I have never criticized the republican's use of reconciliation to pass Bush's tax cuts. I only note that they did in fact use that procedural rule... the process has a rule that is maybe twenty-five years old called the Byrd rule that requires that any bill passed by the budget reconciliation process could NOT impact government revenues beyond ten years... and THAT is why this tax cut is expiring. Republicans were willing to get tax cuts for the wealthy even when they knew they HAD to make them go away in ten years. It had nothing to do with what their crystal balls had to say about the future of the american economy. It had to do with them only having 51 votes. I think it is hilarious that the GOP was so upset that Obama considered using reconciliation to get helath care for americans, but they were perfectly willing to use reconciliation to get tax cuts for millionaires that ballooned the deficit.

your condemnation of the GOP for using the rules to pass legislation while giving Democratics a pass for using the same rules is amusing.

Where did I condemn the GOP for using reconciliation? I never did. That makes you a liar. no big surprise there. They used it because they had the power to use it and I had no problem with them doing so....but the POINT was that your suggestion that the republicans couldn't predict the present economic mess and THAT is why they built in the ten year expiration is patently false... and you do not have the honor to admit it. Reconciliation REQUIRED it... and they were willing to build in the expiration in order to pass the bill with 51 votes. Now they want to disregard those rules that govern the use of reconciliation... just a few short months after they were appalled that Obama would even CONSIDER using reconciliation for health care. fucking hypocrites.

And you're bitching about me complaining about the Dems using reconciliation. Where did I do that, exactly?

Oh, that's right. I didn't. Guess that makes YOU a liar, using your own standards. Or do they not apply to you?

where did I accuse YOU of complaining about the dems using reconciliation? Oh that's right. I didn't. It has been YOU mischaracterizing my statements from the gitgo... because YOU won't be man enough to admit that the ten year expiration was REQUIRED by the legislative procedure that YOUR party used to pass the tax cuts in the first place... the very same procedure that the leadership of your party condemned the democrats for even CONSIDERING using.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You're right. I support cutting spending. Do you? I mean, other than just defense?

I support across the board cuts. I've said that for a long time.

Obviously spending cuts across the board have unintended consequences. Most of the 'ideas' floated by would-be policy makers (and even some actual policy makers) are nothing more than mental masturbation based on too few facts and too little critical thought.
Consensus on priorities must be established and that has become nearly impossible as politics in America became toxic. When Ideology replaces reason and pragmatic solutions are ignored because they coflict with the current dogma we are left with paralysis and populist bull shit.

That's why you have to get the politicians to sign off on a non-partisan budget commission, with teeth, to come up with a plan. Much like the military base closings commission that was/is used. The politicians will never do what's right because doing what's right involves pain,

and the voters won't put up with that.

 

[MikeK]

"not re-implementing those tax cuts is NOT a tax increase...it's just a refusal to continue your guy's idiocy."
As posted by Jillian....

When you go from paying one amount in taxes then the next day you pay more........Well that's a tax hike,a tax increase,call it what you will.Anyone who disputes whether this tax cut created jobs or not is a fair argument...but do you really think that increasing taxes will create jobs.

C'mon Libs you can't be that stupid...or can you?

Resumption is not innovation. The Bush tax cuts on the wealthy imposed a seriously damaging effect on our economy and served no purpose other than making the filthy rich even filthier. So expiration of Bush's crime against the People is not a tax increase. It is simply the resumption of a tax policy that existed during the time of good economic health.

By the way, I am neither a "Liberal" nor a "Conservative."

 

[georgephillip]

If the median income of the 118 million Americans who earn enough to pay income taxes is about $50,000/year, and the richest 10 thousand Americans average $50,000,000/year and pay just over 20% of their income in taxes, do you see how foot-ware, not to mention galoshes, might be a luxury for many workers, Comrade?

America is 234 Years Old

So you want someone to buy your shoes for you.

What a lazy piece of shit. Get to work, slacker. Nobody owes you anything.

The way taxpayers buy your shoes?

Why don't you stop sucking the Government teat?

Parasite.

 

[Rozman]

Everybody loves the rich guy....The left loves them because it gives them a demon to attack...but they love them also because they love that tax revenue.They go home after the day is over feeling good about themselves when this administration announces bigger and better ways to attack the rich.Keep it up guys sooner then later the rich will be gone and who will be left to pay the check.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Bush tax cuts. If they expire, massive tax hikes on rich people and rich companies will ensue.

Liberals: If you are at work in January, for a wealthy company or wealthy boss, and you the Bush cuts to expire as Obama wants, how will you feel if you get called into the office and told:


"Since Washington let the tax cuts expire, we can't afford the staff your division as is. 40% of you will be laid off. It will be a randomly selected group. You'll know within 2 weeks."

If you lose your job due to Obama allowing the companies and rich people to get their taxes hiked, how will you feel? Or, what if you come to work after watching MSNBC applaud Obama no longer allowing tax breaks for the rich, and find out your best friend at work got laid off, because it turns out the Bush tax cuts allowed enough capital for that company to expand your division 6 years ago and hire both of you, but now they cant afford you both and one has to go?????

Never forget, as much as you lefties hate the rich and hate corporations, they provide the jobs in this country. If you want a good paying, stable job, most likely it's gonna be working for a rich person or company. Thats reality, and I'm thankful for the rich who have employed me and don't want their taxes to go up, because the more money they send to Washington DC, the less money they send to their employees.

Not going to happen, dumb ass. The '50s were good times, what were the taxes then? We should put those taxes back into place until Bush's wars are paid for.

 

[Old Rocks]

Everybody loves the rich guy....The left loves them because it gives them a demon to attack...but they love them also because they love that tax revenue.They go home after the day is over feeling good about themselves when this administration announces bigger and better ways to attack the rich.Keep it up guys sooner then later the rich will be gone and who will be left to pay the check.

I see. There were no rich people during the '50s, '60s, and '70s? There were no jobs created?

You creeps that endlessly repeat this talking point have no knowledge of history at all.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, I'm concerned about the deficit. Serious cuts need to be made in spending. But the Democrats are never going to go along with cutting their vote-buying schemes.

And any time you'd like to be consistent in your criticism of procedural changes to ram through agendas, that'd be great.

look. I have never criticized the republican's use of reconciliation to pass Bush's tax cuts. I only note that they did in fact use that procedural rule... the process has a rule that is maybe twenty-five years old called the Byrd rule that requires that any bill passed by the budget reconciliation process could NOT impact government revenues beyond ten years... and THAT is why this tax cut is expiring. Republicans were willing to get tax cuts for the wealthy even when they knew they HAD to make them go away in ten years. It had nothing to do with what their crystal balls had to say about the future of the american economy. It had to do with them only having 51 votes. I think it is hilarious that the GOP was so upset that Obama considered using reconciliation to get helath care for americans, but they were perfectly willing to use reconciliation to get tax cuts for millionaires that ballooned the deficit.

Ummm...I'm not a millionaire, and I got a tax cut. So did you.

Yup. We all got a little tax cut. And there are millions that now would give that tax cut back if they could have their jobs back.

Tax cuts during a war is fiscal insanity, fiscally suicidal to boot. And the chickens came home to roost in 2008.