PDA

View Full Version : Dems can't see the forest...



eg8r
12-07-2010, 05:42 PM
Obama conceded to the Republicans but takes his digs, fair is fair. Give one group a tax cut then give all groups a tax cut that is fair. It is such a tired old whine when we have some people complaining the rich don't pay their fair share of taxes yet that same group does not want to give them their fair share of cuts, pretty sad if you ask me. Anyways, for now Obama did the right thing.

Now for what I don't understand...Social Security. This is something that we already cannot afford and Congress is looking to give a tax cut on that also. How does this make any sense? It is going to cost $130+ billion. This just seems crazy to me.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"I still seem puzzled at the president's enthusiasm, and the Republicans giving an income tax break for people making over $1 million. We're borrowing $46 billion to do so," said Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu, a moderate Democrat.

</div></div>Mary Landrieu sure sounds like a complete idiot in this statement. She is complaining about borrowing $46 billion for the tax breaks for the rich (the actual producers of this country) but she is fine with borrowing $380+ billion to give to the middle class and poor. How can you be pissed about borrowing $46 billion and be fine with borrowing $380 billion?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said Tuesday the agreement "clearly presents the differences between Democrats and Republicans."

</div></div>Yes, it shows the Reps care about ALL Americans and the Dems care only for their voters.

I see that part of the deal reels back in some of the government theft of our wealthy estates. It is not enough but it is better. It is a sad day when the Dems talk about how much that costs. It is almost like they are frothing at the mouth waiting for the real producers of this country to die so they can get their grubby hands on money that is not theirs.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/07/tax.deal/index.html?hpt=T2

eg8r

Deeman3
12-07-2010, 07:29 PM
If you can't generate wealth of your own, I guess the only option is to steal it like LBJ did with social security all those years ago.

Qtec
12-08-2010, 02:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How can you be pissed about borrowing $46 billion and be fine with borrowing $380 billion? </div></div>

The $380 B is money well spent. Its going to families who NEED it and it helps the economy because they will spend the money.

The $46 B is a waste. The $46 B is just to pay off the republican base, ie the top 2%.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Now for what I don't understand...Social Security. This is something that we already cannot afford</div></div> BS.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, it shows the Reps care about ALL Americans </div></div>

So why did they vote against letting 98% of the pop keeping the Bush tax cut? They held the 98% hostage and held out for the 2%.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WASHINGTON (AFP) President Barack Obama's Republican foes in the Senate have blocked a move to let Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans expire, rejecting in the process Democrats' efforts to extend those breaks just for the middle class.

Obama said he was "very disappointed" at the vote.

"It makes no sense to hold tax cuts for the middle class hostage to permanent tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent of Americans," he added.

In a rare weekend session that followed days of stormy debate, the 100-member Senate on Saturday fell short of the 60 votes necessary to approve the Democratic proposal of renewing low tax rates only for individuals earning up to 200,000 dollars and for families with 250,000 dollars or less of income.

The measure, backed by the White House, would have let rates on higher earners rise at the beginning of next year to where they were before cuts enacted by former president George W. Bush's administration in 2001 and 2003.

Republicans blocked the legislation on a procedural vote, complaining the measure failed to extend low tax rates for wealthier Americans. They want all of the tax cuts -- including those that directly benefit the top earners -- to be extended instead.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>They also rejected another Democratic proposal to extend the tax cuts for annual incomes of up to <span style="color: #CC0000">one million dollars.</span></span> A handful of Democrats voted against the two measures. </div></div>

This shows who they really represent, the uber rich.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is almost like they are frothing at the mouth waiting for<span style='font-size: 14pt'> the real producers</span> of this country to die so they can get their grubby hands on money that is not theirs. </div></div>

The real producers are the workers.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hoover Dam, once known as Boulder Dam, is a concrete arch-gravity dam in the Black Canyon of the Colorado River, on the border between the US states of Arizona and Nevada. It was constructed between 1931 and 1936 during the Great Depression, and was dedicated on September 30, 1935, by President Franklin Roosevelt. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>Its construction was the result of a massive effort involving thousands of workers, and cost over one hundred lives.</span> </div></div>

It was also commisioned by the Govt. Who says Govt can't create jobs?


You act like those who make a lot of money are Aristocrats. All bow down. Its very typical American of you to judge people by how much money they make.

You are still buying the 'Trickle Down' crap which Reagan and especially Bush showed that it doesn't work. The result is that the poor get poorer, the middle class tread water and the rich are doing wonderfully thank you very much.

It says in the USCON, "provide for the common Defence and <span style='font-size: 20pt'>general Welfare of the United States</span>".

.............not Wall St.



Q enough for now.


The top 2% got $46,000,000,000.

Think about it.


Forty Six Thousand Million Dollars!

Gayle in MD
12-08-2010, 03:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">$46 billion for the tax breaks for the rich (the actual producers of this country) </div></div>

<span style="color: #CC0000"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Bull! </span> </span>

LWW
12-08-2010, 04:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">$46 billion for the tax breaks for the rich (the actual producers of this country) </div></div>

<span style="color: #CC0000"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Bull! </span> </span> </div></div>

Then who are the actual producers?

Are you ... again ... buying into Pelosi's stupidonomics hypothesis that high UE drives the economy?

Wealth is not created by printing checks.

LWW

LWW
12-08-2010, 04:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How can you be pissed about borrowing $46 billion and be fine with borrowing $380 billion? </div></div>

The $380 B is money well spent. Its going to families who NEED it and it helps the economy because they will spend the money. </div></div>

That is so wrongheaded I don't know where to begin, but I'll try:

1 - It <span style='font-size: 14pt'><span style='font-family: Arial Black'>HURTS</span></span> the poor as it speeds the bankruptcy of the national retirement system.

2 - The more income you earn the higher your 2% reduction will be ... IOW if I earn $20K my 2% will be $400/yr but if I make $25K my 2% will be $5K /yr.

LWW

LWW
12-08-2010, 04:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The $46 B is a waste. The $46 B is just to pay off the republican base, ie the top 2%.</div></div>

Then why didn't they win the last election 98% - 2%?

The reality is that Obama's stupidonomics has devastated the working poor in America. MW workers have UE rates far higher than the national average. It has also devastated the black community as UE is also far far higher than it was before.

The harsh reality is that the people who have came out the best under stupidonomics are:

- The very wealthy.
- Gubmint employees.
- Unions.

LWW

eg8r
12-08-2010, 08:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bull!
</div></div>Why would you call Mary Landrieu a liar?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"I still seem puzzled at the president's enthusiasm, and the Republicans giving an income tax break for people making over $1 million. We're borrowing $46 billion to do so," said Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu, a moderate Democrat.

</div></div>

eg8r

eg8r
12-08-2010, 08:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The $380 B is money well spent.</div></div>If you can't afford to spend $380, then you can't afford to spend the $46. This is quite simple to understand for anyone not desperate for a handout.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The $46 B is just to pay off the republican base, ie the top 2%.

</div></div>The $46 B pays off the producers of this country and the $380 pays off everyone else.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now for what I don't understand...Social Security. This is something that we already cannot afford<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BS.

</div></div></div></div>What do you not understand about a deficit? It means you have no money. If you cannot afford $46B tax cut how can you afford a $130B break on social security. On top of that, we are already hearing that there is not enough SS to go around and now you are going to ask a smaller group to pay even less SS. Was your two letter response simply because you couldn't google quick enough to find someone to tell you what you think?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So why did they vote against letting 98% of the pop keeping the Bush tax cut? They held the 98% hostage and held out for the 2%.

</div></div>Stupid question q. Do you think the Dems would have been more willing to give the top 2% their tax cut at a later time? This was the only time to make sure the Dems were fair to all Americans. This happens to be a trait the Dems only care about when they are not in control which happens to be in a month.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This shows who they really represent, the uber rich.

</div></div>Actually it shows that they really represent ALL Americans which is something the Dems have proven they do not and if they keep that up they will find themselves completely out of office.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The real producers are the workers.

</div></div>I don't completely disagree but when we are talking about funding this tax break the real producers are the top 2%.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It was also commisioned by the Govt. Who says Govt can't create jobs?

</div></div>Who said the Government can't create TEMPORARY jobs? The ONLY long time jobs the Government has ever created were Federal positions which are a toll on taxpayers. Then when those federal jobs are created how are they funded? Are they self-sufficient? NOPE. Not one single federal job being created is self-sufficient. They all run to the rich taxpayer teet asking for more.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You act like those who make a lot of money are Aristocrats. All bow down. Its very typical American of you to judge people by how much money they make.

</div></div>I don't judge anyone but a better identifier than income would be spending. You are the one caught up on how much they make. Remember your stupid comment about "uber rich". I want tax breaks for all Americans, notice that has nothing to do with income. You brought income into the discussion when you wanted to steal from 2% because they work harder and perform better than you.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The top 2% got $46,000,000,000.

Think about it.

</div></div>Well if we have to think about it you might as well at least try to be correct...They did not get anything. They are keeping what is already theirs, think about that.

eg8r

pooltchr
12-08-2010, 06:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

So why did they vote against letting 98% of the pop keeping the Bush tax cut? They held the 98% hostage and held out for the 2%.



</div></div>

Or looking at it another way, the stood up for what was right for EVERYONE...a FAIR implimentation of the bill toward EVERYBODY, and not just to benefit some at the expense of others.

Funny, how that word "fair" can come back to bite you.

Steve

Stretch
12-08-2010, 09:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

So why did they vote against letting 98% of the pop keeping the Bush tax cut? They held the 98% hostage and held out for the 2%.



</div></div>

Or looking at it another way, the stood up for what was right for EVERYONE...a FAIR implimentation of the bill toward EVERYBODY, and not just to benefit some at the expense of others.

Funny, how that word "fair" can come back to bite you.

Steve </div></div>

Or "fare" even..... St.

Qtec
12-09-2010, 01:09 AM
Fair, the Poor Rich.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_gcA0ZuKGkI8/TPO7Kj8gS9I/AAAAAAAAJUg/5VaGxAF-MnQ/s1600/Tax+Rates+and+Revenue.jpg

See the graph ? Lets go back 30 yrs. The top rate then was 70%, today its 35%, a 50% tax cut!

Have the other rates had a 50% tax cut?


Q....fair?

Qtec
12-09-2010, 02:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you can't afford to spend $380, then you can't afford to spend the $46. </div></div>

That was the <span style='font-size: 14pt'>compromise!</span> The tax cuts were due to<span style='font-size: 14pt'> expire.</span> This would have <span style='font-size: 14pt'>reduced the deficit </span>greatly. Due to the dire circumstances of the economy, Obama said he would keep the tax cuts in place for <span style='font-size: 17pt'>98% of the tax payers.</span> That's not fair?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is quite simple to understand for anyone not desperate for a handout. </div></div>


Millions are out of work and have lost their homes because of Wall St. THE OTHER 98% AND THE UNBORN BAILED THEM OUT...and you want to give them $ 46B as a thank you.

Q

LWW
12-09-2010, 03:54 AM
Thanks for the chart. If you study it you may actually get it.

The depression brought with it massive tax hikes ... the economy collapsed, but the state's portion of GDP remained the same.

Meanwhile in the 1960's and 1980'2 we had tax cuts and the economy flourished whie the stat's portion of GDP remained the same.

Again, I will ask you ... which situation is better for the nation:

- The economy produces $100.00 of GDP and the state takes 20%.
- The economy produces $72.00 of GDP and the state takes 25%.

LWW

Qtec
12-09-2010, 04:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks for the chart. If you study it you may actually get it. </div></div>

I get it, you IGNORE it.
The point is that in the last 30 years, the top rate of income tax has been halved.

Yes or No.

Q

LWW
12-09-2010, 05:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks for the chart. If you study it you may actually get it. </div></div>

I get it, you IGNORE it.
The point is that in the last 30 years, the top rate of income tax has been halved.

Yes or No.

Q </div></div>

Thank you.

In spite of it being halved, the state's share of GDP has remained remarkably constant ... and GDP has skyrocketed. The net result is more funding for the treasury and an increased standard of living for the average family.

I see that as a good thing ... you don't. Why is that?

Why would you prefer a confiscatory tax rate which bludgeons the economy, impoverishes the average citizen, and doesn't even generate any new revenue for your beloved state?

When you can answer that I'll listen ... currently I can only assume you believe that because your beloved party tells you to believe that.

In spite of your blinders, that is a totally irrational POV you are clinging to.

LWW

eg8r
12-09-2010, 08:18 AM
qtip, fair means if you give the tax cut to one group then you need to give it to all groups. Why is this very elementary idea so difficult for you to understand.

eg8r