PDA

View Full Version : Dems! More inconsistency.



pooltchr
12-08-2010, 06:08 PM
All we have heard from the left is how the Reps are the "party of no", and are not willing to compromise with the left.

So now we have a compromised reached on the tax bill between Obama and the Reps, and are the Dems celebrating? No, they are turning on Obama for compromising with the Reps!!!!!!!!!

It just shows that when they say"bipartisan", what they really mean is "we want everyone to do things our way"

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Steve

cushioncrawler
12-08-2010, 06:15 PM
Buypartisanship.
GOP rowing one way on one side -- Dems rowing the other way on other side.
USS-Enterprize iz spinning -- wont go very far -- hope for a lucky wind -- a usofa kamikazi.
mac.

Qtec
12-09-2010, 02:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So now we have a compromised reached on the tax bill between Obama </div></div>

What was the compromise?

Q

LWW
12-09-2010, 03:59 AM
No matter how low the bar is set ...

LWW

Qtec
12-09-2010, 04:29 AM
Another simple question that you can't seem to answer.

Q

Qtec
12-09-2010, 04:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It just shows that when they say"bipartisan", what they really mean is "we want everyone to do things our way"
</div></div>

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Its tax cuts for all or none.</span> That was the GOP compromise.

Q

pooltchr
12-09-2010, 07:52 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">So now we have a compromised reached on the tax bill between Obama </div></div>

What was the compromise?

Q </div></div>

Let me try to make it really simple for you. The Reps wanted the tax cuts extended for everyone. (Can you say "fair"?)
Obama wanted unemployment benefits extended without having to actually having to cut spending elsewhere to pay for it.
The bill contains both.
That is called compromise.

Both sides get something they want.

See how it works?

Steve

eg8r
12-09-2010, 08:37 AM
Absolutely. Man, the lefties sure hate the word fair when they are in charge. Hypocrites.

eg8r

Chopstick
12-09-2010, 08:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Its tax cuts for all or none.</span> </div></div>

Tax cuts? Let me help you out with a simple concept.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>It's not their money. It's our money.</span>

This came up as a trading problem in a new book I was studying last night. An owner of a company wants to pass on his company to his children. None of them have shown any interest in his business and he is sure they will wreck it. However, his grand daughter is very bright and he wants her to be the one to take over for him when he passes away. She inherits the business and cannot afford to pay the death taxes. She is forced to sell 900,000 shares of the companies stock to cover the tax. How do you execute a block trade that size without destroying the stock price and the company?

My answer was simple. Invite the British to come back and burn down Washington DC again. The sooner we line up all the socialist democrats and march them over the border, the better it will be for us all. If there happens to be an ocean there, I don't have a particular problem with that.

Qtec
12-09-2010, 09:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let me try to make it really simple for you. The Reps wanted the tax cuts extended for everyone. </div></div>

That would be fine if they had they money to do it. There is no economic reason to give the wealthiest more money.

Q

eg8r
12-09-2010, 09:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That would be fine if they had they money to do it. There is no economic reason to give the wealthiest more money.

</div></div>Why do you throw "fair" under the bus when the Dems are in control? There is no money to do any of it. What makes the most freaking sense is letting the tax cuts go away for EVERYONE!!! $380B to the poor and middle class is more detrimental to our country than the $46B to those making over $250k (which definitely does not make them rich).

eg8r

Qtec
12-09-2010, 10:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">$380B to the poor and middle class is more detrimental to our country than the $46B to those making over $250k </div></div>

This is the problem with you, you keep spouting these Luntz talking points when you have absolutely no proof to back it up.

When you give people money who will spend it, it stimulates demand. Giving a billionaire another billion does nothing. Especially when you have to borrow the money to do it.

Q

eg8r
12-09-2010, 10:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is the problem with you, you keep spouting these Luntz talking points when you have absolutely no proof to back it up.

</div></div>What do you mean no proof. We have no money, period. Giving away $380B does not fix that. Your problem is that you only think in extremes because you are looking for effect instead of reality. Here is a good example...<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Giving a billionaire another billion does nothing. Especially when you have to borrow the money to do it.

</div></div>These people are the minority when you look at the income level starting at $250k. If you want to at least appear reasonable then why don't you drop your extreme examples and come back to reality.

eg8r

pooltchr
12-09-2010, 11:30 AM
q. You keep talking about giving people money. In this particular case, the government isn't giving anyone any money, they are just deciding how much money they are going to take from people.

Here's a simple little something to think about. If I put a gun to your head and take your money, that is illegal.
If I take your money at gunpoint, but give it to someone else, it's still illegal.
Now, if the government takes your money by force to give it to someone else, how can you justify that??

Taxes collected to operate the government, within the parameters outlined in the constitution, such as providing for defense, is fine. Taxes collected to give to others, be it farmer subsidies, welfare, or even collecting more tax from some to cover the cost of giving tax credits to others, is wrong.

Wisdom of the Month
"I am a mortal enemy to arbitrary government and unlimited power. I am naturally very jealous for the rights and liberties of my country, and the least encroachment of those invaluable privileges is apt to make my blood boil."
--Ben Franklin


Steve

sack316
12-09-2010, 11:32 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">Let me try to make it really simple for you. The Reps wanted the tax cuts extended for everyone. </div></div>

That would be fine if they had they money to do it. There is no economic reason to give the wealthiest more money.

Q </div></div>

Nobody is "giving" anyone more money. The government is simply not taking as much as they would if the tax cuts were to expire.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is no economic reason to give the wealthiest more money. </div></div>

There's no economic reason to give the gov't more money based on the irresponsible handling of money over the last ten+ years or so.

Let's say I've got a ton of credit card debt. Getting myself in a little trouble with it. So Q, being the responsible friend of mine is a very nice guy, and decides to throw me a little cash.

A few weeks later, Q sees me out and about, spending like crazy! Of course Q is curious, so he asks me what's going on. I say something like "Well, the cash you gave me sure did help... plus I also took out a few more credit cards on top of it!"

What is the solution? Give me more money at this point, as my credit card debt has now gone even higher than before? Or should I reign in my own spending?

Sack