No wonder those losers got their asses handed to them last month. They can't keep shit together.

It really is quite embarassing. How do you become so irrelevant despite the fact you are still the majority party in the Senate?

jo wrote:
"They[democrats] can't keep shit together."

They couldn't when they were swept into the biggest power sweep in history...and that became their downfall. They caved continuously to the minority Republicans...Obama too...kept trying to reach out, when the party of no had made it clear they had no intentions of working with him.

It will be the same for the next two years, especially now that people are fed-up with the dems seeing no change really to the status quo. Since the recession was declared over in summer 2009, unemployment has actually risen an additional percentage point. What we are sitting in is stagflation...the economy is anemic at best and there is no will in Washington to make meaningful change.

The Dems blew the jump start to the economy by giving greater concessions to banks/corps than the little men out there. Now the Reps are going to be increasingly in power and they talk the game of balancing budgets...all without increasing taxes. It's a total farce.

Even if we dissolved government we're still on the hook for all that money out there. If they are serious about balancing the budget and bringing our runaway spending in line we have to cut govt - across the board (not just places they fancy...but across everything) AND raise taxes...especially on the wealthier classes.

Of course there is no will from the Reps to do that...perhaps from a few tea partiers but not enough to form any meaningful consensus...and so the status quo of finger-pointing and tiny steps one way or another will continue unabated.

jo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No wonder those losers got their asses handed to
> them last month. They can't keep shit together.


tis why i'm hoping for a third party soon enough.
threads like these could use a lil spice.



zzzzzzzz.

yeefuckinghaw

The best thing to do is to move your money overseas and into European mutual fund accounts. Greedy Republicans are going to ass the US economy again. Let the deficit increase begin! Go Republicans!

Kim Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The best thing to do is to move your money
> overseas and into European mutual fund accounts.
> Greedy Republicans are going to ass the US economy
> again. Let the deficit increase begin! Go
> Republicans!

Oh, poor Kim. You've been riding that red rag since early November, haven't you?

Kim Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The best thing to do is to move your money
> overseas and into European mutual fund accounts.
> Greedy Republicans are going to ass the US economy
> again. Let the deficit increase begin! Go
> Republicans!

Why do you say that? You mean that the last $5 Trillion dollar spending binge that the Obama/Reid/Pelosi crew went on wasn't enough? Now, the Republicans are going to come in and pile more on it? If anything, hopefully the Republicans can get some of that needless crap repealed and bring the debt levels down.

You do understand the difference between the Debt and the Deficit, right Kim?

.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/23/2011 01:57PM by chuckhoffmann.

It is really a neat trick. Put a bunch of policies in place that cause the economy to fail and the deficit to explode but skirt out the door just before the bills arrive. Then start pointing fingers at the Democrats as the cause. It is a pity that the American people are so stupid that it actually works.

But, Why ?? Wrote:
>
> Why do you say that? You mean that the last $5
> Trillion dollar spending binge that the
> Obama/Reid/Pelosi crew went on wasn't enough?
> Now, the Republicans are going to come in and pile
> more on it? If anything, hopefully the
> Republicans can get some of that needless crap
> repealed and bring the debt levels down.
>
> You do understand the difference between the Debt
> and the Deficit, right Kim?

Voter____ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> It is a pity that the American people are so stupid that it actually works.

+1

Over the weekend I heard some idiot (a retired police chief no less) ranting about Obama giving a tax break to millionaires and blaming the Democrats for the recent spike in gas prices.

I hate both parties equally, but the Dems had a supermajority the last 2 years. The Repubs couldn't block anything which is how half the stuff got passed. All the Repubs voted no and Obamacare, stimulus, etc still were passed anyway. I laugh at the notion that the party of no blocked everything.

This is why no matter which party is in control of the Congress, Congressional approval ratings usually are lower than Presidential approval ratings. Whether it is taxes, immigration, social security reform, budget cutting or any other matter of any great importance, a combination of gutlessness and self interest generally combine to prevent Congress from making any really difficult changes which would result in meaningful progress in this country.

Tax rates were not too high under the pre-Bush tax code (they were lower than the rates in effect after Reagan's 1981 tax act, and/or after his 1986 tax act, depending on the taxpayer), and given that current rates are the lowest in recent history tax cuts are unlikely to result in any economic improvements. However raising taxes on any group other than "the wealthy" is politically unpopular, and coming up with a mutually agreeable definition of "the wealthy" is almost impossible. Maintaining the tax cuts will therefore result in a reduction in Federal revenue. If you believe that the Federal government should live within its means, that will mean even greater cuts in programs, including many politically popular programs. WHO IS GOING TO MAKE THOSE POLITICALLY UNPOPULAR CUTS? THE SAME GUTLESS GROUP OF FOLKS THAT COULDN'T AGREE TO RAISE TAXES TO PAY FOR THOSE POLITICALLY POPULAR PROGRAMS?

We've been through all of this before. Republicans are just as guilty of this as Democrats.

tax breaks arent a right. its a privilege. The Government can and should revoke them when the deficit is high. Stop pretending you have a moral certainty to giving back less than anyone else.

Vince(1) .. er pas'ion...

Yeah, seriously, you have a clue don't you.

NOT.

The moral certainty is that government is not supposed to be our nanny. Just because they can't act like adults and spend responsibly, and support programs and policies that make sense, doesn't mean they have a right to continually spend that way just because they have.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Bush And Reagan Economists Reject Notion That Tax Cut Packages Raised Revenue

Former Bush Economist Viard: "There's No Evidence That These Tax Cuts Would Come Anywhere Close" To Paying For Themselves. Alan Viard, a former Bush White House economist, was quoted in The Washington Post as saying:

"Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that," said Alan D. Viard, a former Bush White House economist now at the nonpartisan American Enterprise Institute. "It's logically possible" that a tax cut could spur sufficient economic growth to pay for itself, Viard said. "But there's no evidence that these tax cuts would come anywhere close to that." [The Washington Post, 10/17/06]

Former Bush Economist Holtz-Eakin: "You Are Not Going To Get Tax Cuts To Pay For Themselves." In a Boston Globe column, former Bush economist Douglas Holtz-Eaken was quoted as saying: "You're not going to get tax cuts to pay for themselves":

According to the Wall Street Journal, Americans believe preventing the estate tax from rising is a higher priority than preserving Bush era tax rates or unemployment benefits. How many people here agree with that sentiment?


President Obama and Congressional Democrats don't think this is a high priority, but voters do. A November Gallup Poll found that Americans think that keeping the estate tax "from increasingly significantly" is "very important" by 56% to 17% "not too important." That's more than think it is a priority to extend current tax rates (50%), extend jobless benefits (48%), ratify the Start treaty (40%) or let openly gay men and women serve in the military (32%).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703814404576001591839952886.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

pas'ion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bush And Reagan Economists Reject Notion That Tax
> Cut Packages Raised Revenue

So why does your demokrat Obama favor a plan that lowers taxes? He is favoring, shopping and supporting a plan that keeps the Bush tax cuts for millionaires, billionaires, and trillionaires through the rest of his presidency. Demokrats in the korrupt kongress will be voting for this plan too.

------------------------------------

twitter @EyeAmU

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) .. er pas'ion...
>
I'm starting to think this is an accurate statement...

Voter____ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> According to the Wall Street Journal, Americans
> believe preventing the estate tax from rising is a
> higher priority than preserving Bush era tax rates
> or unemployment benefits. How many people here
> agree with that sentiment?
>
>
> President Obama and Congressional Democrats don't
> think this is a high priority, but voters do. A
> November Gallup Poll found that Americans think
> that keeping the estate tax "from increasingly
> significantly" is "very important" by 56% to 17%
> "not too important." That's more than think it is
> a priority to extend current tax rates (50%),
> extend jobless benefits (48%), ratify the Start
> treaty (40%) or let openly gay men and women serve
> in the military (32%).
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487038
> 14404576001591839952886.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Had a loved one die lately? You pay taxes all your life, and then when you die a large portion of your estate is absorbed by the State and Federal government. Rich folks get around this to some extent with trusts, but even then, the probate process will require the trust to pay out for lawyers fees and all sorts of other shit. Honestly, they need to do away with the death tax - it is ridiculous to pay taxes all your life, then when you die suddenly you have to pay taxes on what you managed to keep.

Unfortunately I have had to deal with a lot of this in recent years for various family members, and the folks who died were not rich by any means - yet the taxes and requirements to deal with all the estate issues were stupid, time consuming, and costly to everyone.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Listen, I'm not a big fan of the estate tax. But the idea that more Americans feel that preventing it from rising is a higher priority than preserving current tax rates for middle income earners is preposterous.


Registered Voter Wrote:
>
> Had a loved one die lately? You pay taxes all your
> life, and then when you die a large portion of
> your estate is absorbed by the State and Federal
> government. Rich folks get around this to some
> extent with trusts, but even then, the probate
> process will require the trust to pay out for
> lawyers fees and all sorts of other shit.
> Honestly, they need to do away with the death tax
> - it is ridiculous to pay taxes all your life,
> then when you die suddenly you have to pay taxes
> on what you managed to keep.
>
> Unfortunately I have had to deal with a lot of
> this in recent years for various family members,
> and the folks who died were not rich by any means
> - yet the taxes and requirements to deal with all
> the estate issues were stupid, time consuming, and
> costly to everyone.

conVince - you confuse me - this is basically a big hand-out to Republicans and you're still against it because it came from Obama - would you be as harsh if it were passed from McCain instead?

I personally believe that given the situation we're in, balancing the budget and such should not be the top priority...jump starting the economy should be - giving people that have a job a 2% reduction in their taxes is not going to create the tens of millions of jobs we need right now. All this talk of balancing and cutting government is the complete opposite thing that's needed.

Britdrnva~ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All this talk of balancing and cutting government
> is the complete opposite thing that's needed.

Yeah, Germany is experiencing an economic boom, and did all the things you say are wrong. Hmm.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

No The German economy is not as healthy as you purport.

German economy - where unemployment can exceed 20% in some municipalities - continues to be a costly long-term process, with annual transfers from west to east amounting in 2008 alone to roughly $12 billion. Reforms launched by the government of Chancellor Gerhard SCHROEDER (1998-2005), deemed necessary to address chronically high unemployment and low average growth, contributed to strong growth in 2006 and 2007 and falling unemployment, which in 2008 reached a new post-reunification low of 7.8%. These advances were undone by the global financial crisis that began in 2008 and subsequent economic downturn, which drove Germany's export-driven economy into its deepest recession since World War II. GDP grew just over 1% in 2008 and contracted roughly 5% in 2009. Germany crept out of recession in the second and third quarters of 2009

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Had a loved one die lately? You pay taxes all your
> life, and then when you die a large portion of
> your estate is absorbed by the State and Federal
> government. Rich folks get around this to some
> extent with trusts, but even then, the probate
> process will require the trust to pay out for
> lawyers fees and all sorts of other shit.
> Honestly, they need to do away with the death tax
> - it is ridiculous to pay taxes all your life,
> then when you die suddenly you have to pay taxes
> on what you managed to keep.
>
> Unfortunately I have had to deal with a lot of
> this in recent years for various family members,
> and the folks who died were not rich by any means
> - yet the taxes and requirements to deal with all
> the estate issues were stupid, time consuming, and
> costly to everyone.


I used to deal with estate tax rather extensively, and much of this is BS. Truth is because of the way the Federal estate tax is structured it affects very few estates, and the effective rates on those estates affected is much less than the estate tax rates would suggest. The real problem with the estate tax system is not so much that it is unfair, but that it does not work all that well. More revenue could be raised, and it could be raised with less impact on taxpayers life decisions, it we did away with the estate tax, we made all sales of assets received by gift or inheritance ordinary gain transactions, and we made the basis for those assets $0 (or if they were gifted subject to any liens the amount of the lien). This would prevent families from having to make unnecessarily complicated estate plans in an effort to reduce or avoid estate taxes and would prevent estates or beneficiaries from having to sell illiquid assets at fire sale prices to raise funds in order to pay estate taxes.

As for other estate issues being stupid, you might feel differently if you had experienced estates where the assets were looted by the executors, estates where one family member decided to take what they felt entitled to rather than what the will provided, or estates where the beneficiaries took the assets before paying off the decedent's creditors. I haven't seen it all, but I have seen enough to know why many of those "stupid" steps are there.

And yes I have had close family members die and have had to wade through this morass myself.

Bill N Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And yes I have had close family members die and
> have had to wade through this morass myself.

Yes, for estates that are insolvent it becomes an even bigger issue that has little to do with estate taxes. That is why you usually see fire sales - to pay off debt. In those cases the estate taxes generally don't apply - whole different set of issues and problems.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

As the lame-duck Congress draws to a close, the only debate is about whether to add $4 trillion to the national debt (as the Republicans' tax-cut plan would do) or only $3 trillion (as the Democrats' plan would do).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/06/AR2010120605913.html

Britdrnva~ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> conVince - you confuse me - this is basically a
> big hand-out to Republicans and you're still
> against it because it came from Obama - would you
> be as harsh if it were passed from McCain
> instead?

I did not say in my post I opposed it. I was pointing out that the demokrat said tax cuts don't work but his king and demokrat minions in kongress will be voting for it after promising not to. I am glad demokrats are finally voting like republicans, makes things much easier.

------------------------------------

twitter @EyeAmU

Republicans don't seem to understand that one needn't support all tax cuts all the time in order to support some tax cuts some of the time. Cutting taxes on wealthy people when rates are already at historic lows isn't very effective. If top marginal rates were at 75%, sure it would make sense to reduce them and would provide a big boost to the economy. At 35%? Not so much. Cutting taxes in 2000 when nobody needed it wasn't the smartest thing in the world. But raising them across the board on the heels of the worst recession in decades wouldn't be that smart either. Republicans have one tool in their toolbox--a hammer--but not every problem is a nail.

conVince Wrote:
> I did not say in my post I opposed it. I was
> pointing out that the demokrat said tax cuts don't
> work but his king and demokrat minions in kongress
> will be voting for it after promising not to. I
> am glad demokrats are finally voting like
> republicans, makes things much easier.

There would have been a pretty decent argument for getting rid of the "tax cuts for the wealthy" when the economy was robust and before the housing bubble. I don't think anyone can say for certain its such a bad idea to keep the same rates now.I can't see much logic in bitching about the lost revenue after we we're told again and again that the stimulus and that deficit spending was so needed.

Obama has a dem controlled congress and couldn't rally enough support with them or get any bipartisan support. The repubs fault? Don't think so.

I would have given him credit for spirit (but not policy) if he had fought harder and threatened to go down with this ship. He's an overeducated fraud who believes in nothing. He's not qualified to manage a CVS.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

WHy do people think it is okay for one person to pay more for something than another. If you went to the store to by gas and based on your income, that decided what you paid for gas. I'm sure it seems fair to the less fortunate. what happens when the government decide to charge you based on you ethnicity. I'm sure that would also be fair. Please remember the money you earn is not the governments to take it is your to give.

But that is what Obama promised, he promised that if you make under $250k household that your taxes would not go up one dime. Are you saying that when the gas and tobacco taxes went up that you don't see a note on the pump that you were exempt from those taxes because you didn't make enough to pay them? I have seen the guy at Safeway give customers back eight cents when they pay for smokes and tell him they are in the poor crowd that Obama promised wouldn't see any new taxes.

The tax code is so lopsided that of the Americans who are lucky to have a job under Obama after the demokratik pelosi took over the US House in 2006 and started the economic downturn, only half pay any income tax at all. The rest get national military protection for free, lucky them.

Income tax should be done away with and replaced by a national sales tax. You then pay, I then pay, all the illegals pay, everyone pays. And when the country runs into dire times the rate can be moved up. That will of course be absolutely unpopular as EVERYONE will see and feel it, which is a motivator for those in Kongress to keep spending in balance with revenues.

------------------------------------

twitter @EyeAmU



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/08/2010 10:32AM by conVince.

conVince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But that is what Obama promised, he promised that
> if you make under $250k household that your taxes
> would not go up one dime. Are you saying that
> when the gas and tobacco taxes went up that you
> don't see a note on the pump that you were exempt
> from those taxes because you didn't make enough to
> pay them? I have seen the guy at Safeway give
> customers back eight cents when they pay for
> smokes and tell him they are in the poor crowd
> that Obama promised wouldn't see any new taxes.
>
> The tax code is so lopsided that of the Americans
> who are lucky to have a job under Obama after the
> demokratik pelosi took over the US House in 2006
> and started the economic downturn, only half pay
> any income tax at all. The rest get national
> military protection for free, lucky them.
>
> Income tax should be done away with and replaced
> by a national sales tax. You then pay, I then
> pay, all the illegals pay, everyone pays. And
> when the country runs into dire times the rate can
> be moved up. That will of course be absolutely
> unpopular as EVERYONE will see and feel it, which
> is a motivator for those in Kongress to keep
> spending in balance with revenues.

I love the idea of consumption based taxes like a VAT.

However, I see a problem with it that will make Americans bristle and that is the issue of enforcement. Who will ensure that the VAT is paid? In Italy they have the Guardia di Finanza or "Finance Guard". They are armed police charged with enforcement of of VAT collection. If they suspect that a street vendor of say, gelato is not collecting VAT, they will actually chase you, the customer down and ask for a receipt of purchase to prove you paid the VAT. Of course, that's Italy. I wonder how it is handled in the rest of the EU.

COnsumption taxes need to be looked at.

I always hear the agrument that they are regressive and hit the poor harder.

I don't see how, if the poor are buying Ramen noodles and clothes from Mortons Crazy Days they would pay nearly as much in total than the wealthy who are buying expensive meals, designer labels and other high end items.

Maybe there is a theory that a consumption tax discourages what it taxes?

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

FWIW, I think the notion of an estate tax is abhorrent. You work hard, invest, and succeed in life (all of which is taxed through capital gains tax, income tax, and property tax). Then you die and desire to pass on your successes to your heirs. They get taxed on what was already taxed.

Its bullshit for those passing on $10,000 (which doesn't see any tax) and its bullshit for those passing on $10,000,000.

I received a life insurance policy pay out last year and had to pay the govrenment more than half of what I received. It was considered untaxed income. Good thing I didn,t have to bury anybody.

If George Steinbrenner hadn't died this year, his sons would have lost ownership of the Yankees because of the estate tax. THAT is absurd.

There are quite a few proponents of the VAT, often referred to as the Fair Tax plan. From what I have read about it, the average person would actually pay less in taxes with that system in place than what we pay now.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> COnsumption taxes need to be looked at.
>
> I always hear the agrument that they are
> regressive and hit the poor harder.
>
> I don't see how, if the poor are buying Ramen
> noodles and clothes from Mortons Crazy Days they
> would pay nearly as much in total than the wealthy
> who are buying expensive meals, designer labels
> and other high end items.
>
> Maybe there is a theory that a consumption tax
> discourages what it taxes?

On things like gasoline, consumption taxes do hurt the poor more than the rich. Generally they have little excess income in the first place so if they have to pay a $2.00/gallon fuel tax that would probably make them choose between gas and bread. For the rich, it just determines how much spending money they have.

The difference of course is locality cost of living. Someone making $75K in the NY City area is probably on par with someone making $35K in the Roanoke area. So when they talk about rich people, they need to make it clear they understand that a sliding scale applies.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University