Obama announces compromise on extending tax cuts

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rlg94086 said:
Well, when the three of you put together your platform, let me know. šŸ˜‰ šŸ˜ƒ
Click to expand...
Dont discourage them, RLGā€¦ sounds great to me if the 17% of liberals/progressive (whatever word they are using these days) go off and form a third party.

Go for it! Perhaps they should run an Allan Grayson/ Nancy Pelosi ticket!
 
Stjudeprayforus said:
Dont discourage them, RLGā€¦ sounds great to me if the 17% of liberals/progressive (whatever word they are using these days) go off and form a third party.

Go for it! Perhaps they should run an Allan Grayson/ Nancy Pelosi ticket!
Click to expand...
šŸ‘
 
He_Man said:
We can all agree on the horrors of wasting our tax money, and defrauding the government. I doubt any of us would disagree, although you cited only the DoD, and left out other arguably worthless and undebatably wasteful groups like the Dept. of Energy and Education.

But what does that have to do woth taking more tax money or levying higher taxes on the wealthy?
Click to expand...
To address your point, Iā€™m not saying, nor do I feel that the rich should be taxed more because they are rich. I donā€™t believe that. The tax we are talking about is more of a rebate. Bush entered office with a budget surplus. He decided to spend the money by giving it back. My share of the rebate did not change my life style in the least. When this rebate was given, there was an understanding that it could not go on forever. No rebate can. It would sunset after ten years. Wouldnā€™t you like to get a rebate for ten years? But now the party is over and the rebate will add trillions to the debt. There is no longer a surplus but one mother of a deficit due to (add your own reason).
We are still throwing our tax dollars in the black hole called Afghanistan and Iraq.
As far as the Dept of Energy, I donā€™t know what they do.
In discussing the Dept of Ed. American students are slipping in the ratings every year. This should be a national security concern. It doesnā€™t take money to fix the education in this country as much as it takes courage to take a hard line, not on the teachers, but the students and parents.
 
A_Fortiori_33 said:
We are still throwing our tax dollars in the black hole called Afghanistan and Iraq.
Click to expand...
This is true. Congress should have replealed those tax cuts when war was declared. Wars cost money but Americans seemed to think someone like Kuwait would reimburse us again as they did in the Gulf War. As it turned out no one reimbursed us and we ended up doing more borrowing.
 
ProVobis said:
Just finished. Over 8 and a half hours on the floor.
Click to expand...
Good for him. I think it would be better to get back to a real filibuster. The new way is just too easy. Itā€™s an Idiotā€™s Guide to the Filibuster
 
A_Fortiori_33 said:
Good for him. I think it would be better to get back to a real filibuster. The new way is just too easy. Itā€™s an Idiotā€™s Guide to the Filibuster
Click to expand...
Real filibusters would be great. Especially for C-Span. May actually get people to see whatā€™s happening.

If nothing else I would like to at least see 41 or more be there if they are filibustering. Right now they (the Republicans) donā€™t even have to show up. Closure ā€œnoā€ votes are basically pointless. And if they canā€™t muster 60 votes, nothing comes up for a real vote.
 
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the compromise between the Republicans and the White House would cost the country **$858 billion **over ten years ā€“ substantially more than the $787 billion stimulus in 2009. This cost comes as a result of extending the Bush tax breaks for those earning more than $250,000 a year, exempting estates up to $5 million ($10 million for couples) from estate tax, and cutting estate taxes from 45% to 35%.

blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/12/10/the-number-858-billion/

Would anyone care to explain how the Republicans can criticize the Obama administration for the increase in the federal deficit resulting from a stimulus package that sought to keep the world-wide economy from plunging into another Great Depression while they seek an even larger package of tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans? The blatant hypocracy of the Republicans is pretty stunning. And to hold the unemployed hostage in order to get this Christmas present for the rich is even more incredible. Ho ho ho, suckas!
 
ProVobis said:
Real filibusters would be great. Especially for C-Span. May actually get people to see whatā€™s happening.

If nothing else I would like to at least see 41 or more be there if they are filibustering. Right now they (the Republicans) donā€™t even have to show up. Closure ā€œnoā€ votes are basically pointless. And if they canā€™t muster 60 votes, nothing comes up for a real vote.
Click to expand...
C-span almost crashed because of the numbers viewing. It was the #2 twitter feed in the world. You go, Bernie.
 
Alan55 said:
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the compromise between the Republicans and the White House would cost the country **$858 billion **over ten years ā€“ substantially more than the $787 billion stimulus in 2009. This cost comes as a result of extending the Bush tax breaks for those earning more than $250,000 a year, exempting estates up to $5 million ($10 million for couples) from estate tax, and cutting estate taxes from 45% to 35%.

blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/12/10/the-number-858-billion/

Would anyone care to explain how the Republicans can criticize the Obama administration for the increase in the federal deficit resulting from a stimulus package that sought to keep the world-wide economy from plunging into another Great Depression while they seek an even larger package of tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans? The blatant hypocracy of the Republicans is pretty stunning. And to hold the unemployed hostage in order to get this Christmas present for the rich is even more incredible. Ho ho ho, suckas!
Click to expand...
I read your post and shook my head. You are right and it boggles that little part of me reserved for common sense. Each side is spinning this to their own advantage. We are probably going to get screwed in the end. That is the only thing I take from this.
 
A_Fortiori_33 said:
To address your point, Iā€™m not saying, nor do I feel that the rich should be taxed more because they are rich. I donā€™t believe that. The tax we are talking about is more of a rebate. Bush entered office with a budget surplus. He decided to spend the money by giving it back. My share of the rebate did not change my life style in the least. When this rebate was given, there was an understanding that it could not go on forever. No rebate can. It would sunset after ten years. Wouldnā€™t you like to get a rebate for ten years? But now the party is over and the rebate will add trillions to the debt. There is no longer a surplus but one mother of a deficit due to (add your own reason).
We are still throwing our tax dollars in the black hole called Afghanistan and Iraq.
As far as the Dept of Energy, I donā€™t know what they do.
In discussing the Dept of Ed. American students are slipping in the ratings every year. This should be a national security concern. It doesnā€™t take money to fix the education in this country as much as it takes courage to take a hard line, not on the teachers, but the students and parents.
Click to expand...
  1. The Bush tax cuts helped us get out of the recession of the early 2000ā€™s.
  2. The only reason the tax cuts had a ā€œsunsetā€ provision was to keep the Democrats from filibustering
  3. If you are held up at gunpoint and robbed. Then later the police recover your money and give it back, is that a rebate?
  4. Liberals should understand that you can raise taxes to 100% and not solve the debt problem. Spending must be addressed, as it is the largest contributor to the debt. Something our elected officials, on both sides of the aisle, have been totally spineless to do.
 
Alan55 said:
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the compromise between the Republicans and the White House would cost the country **$858 billion **over ten years ā€“ substantially more than the $787 billion stimulus in 2009. This cost comes as a result of extending the Bush tax breaks for those earning more than $250,000 a year, exempting estates up to $5 million ($10 million for couples) from estate tax, and cutting estate taxes from 45% to 35%.

blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/12/10/the-number-858-billion/

Would anyone care to explain how the Republicans can criticize the Obama administration for the increase in the federal deficit resulting from a stimulus package that sought to keep the world-wide economy from plunging into another Great Depression while they seek an even larger package of tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans? The blatant hypocracy of the Republicans is pretty stunning. And to hold the unemployed hostage in order to get this Christmas present for the rich is even more incredible. Ho ho ho, suckas!
Click to expand...
Look at the scoreboard (aka the unemployment rate) which just went up. The Obama stimulus didnā€™t work. The Republicans donā€™t want to support the Obama / Pelosi tax increase, simply because raising taxes in a down economy further depresses the economy. Like I said in a previous postā€¦until spending is tackled, the deficit issue will never get solved.

By the wayā€¦please explain what you mean by ā€œthey seek an even larger package of tax breaks for the wealthiest americansā€. This statement is false. They seek to keep the income tax rates the same for all americansā€¦no additional tax cutsā€¦just the same. Also, the death tax is zeroā€¦the proposed package will take that tax to 35%ā€¦thats called an ā€œincreaseā€.
 
A_Fortiori_33 said:
Thatā€™s what a filibuster is supposed to be. He was spotted for a while by two other senators.
Click to expand...
I know what a filibuster is.

I couldnā€™t imagine talking for that longā€¦ I would have to read the phone book or something.

Guys got stamina, how old is heā€¦ in his 70ā€™s?
 
When did the arguement change from how much we are willing to let the government tax us to how much the government is willing to let us keep? :confused:
 
shockerfan said:
  1. ā€œThanks to the systemā€??? Donā€™t you think their hard work had more to do with their success than ā€œthe systemā€? After all, everybody has access to the system, but not all put in the work / risk / sacrifice it takes to be successful in ā€œthe systemā€.
Click to expand...
Yeah I lolā€™d at that part tooā€¦ itā€™s funny how these statists will scoff at the accusation that they believe government starts out with inherent ownership of everything, but then they just come right out and admit it themselves. :doh2: The idea used to be that people earned the money they made and it was actually theirs; now, whatever money you have is only in your hands because the government was ā€œkind enoughā€ to loan it to you in the first place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top