Give me a break! (Obama and tax cuts)

[gloomyDAY]

Well, Obama sided with the Republicans to continue the Bush Era tax cuts. I think the tax cuts should be extended to the middle class and allow Americans to get out of this economic downturn. I'm sure there will be concessions since the Democrats are not willing to vote on the extension as of yet.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101209/ap_on_bi_ge/us_tax_cuts

[Rudy Tamasz]

One night Bill Clinton dreams he meets George Washington. He says “Washington, what can I do to make things better for the people?” Washinton says “Lower the Taxes.” Bill says “I can do that.”

The next night he dreams he meets Thomas Jefferson. He asks “Jefferson, what can I do to make things better for the people?” Jefferson answers “LOWER the TAXES!” Bill says “I’m working on that!”

On the third night he dreams he meets Abraham Lincoln. Again he asks “What can I do to make things better for the people?” Lincoln says “Go … to the theatre!”

[Jag_Warrior]

IMO, the "funniest" part of this whole deal was the Republicans' demand that we borrow another $70 billion (I believe is the figure) so that the estate tax rate and threshold would remain pretty much as is... and here's the kicker: it only benefits about 3600 families in the U.S. (according to Bloomberg News). Good lookin' out there, Mr. Boehner. You were ready to totally f## over the middle class o America if Obama wouldn't agree to give 3600 families their $70 billion in breaks. You are the man! :up:

The total cost of this package (in terms of lost revenue) is about $800 billion, I believe. But as much foolishness as I heard last year about the cost of the stimulus being about $800 billion that we could not afford... hey, guess how much this stimulus deal is costing? Where are all of our Tea Party brothers marching around with their AR-15's now??? Did Fox News not give the Mothership alert for them to come out of their rabbit holes?

But at least they didn't strip out the breaks that will encourage businesses to invest in capital goods and undertake capital projects this year and next. Because of this, my company is already planning to invest several million more in plant equipment and machinery, above what was already planned. And this isn't a HUGE operation that we're talking about. But it is equipment intensive. That's where more of the original stimulus should have gone and that's what the GOP should have been willing to wage war to get: tax breaks to the truly productive areas of our economy. But instead, that one was actually Obama's contribution to this bill. Strange times. The guy who the wingnuts claim is a socialist is the one who actually presents the closest thing to supply side economics in this dog of a tax bill. Go figure. :rolleyes:

[janvanvurpa]

Where are all of our Tea Party brothers marching around with their AR-15's now??? Did Fox News not give the Mothership alert for them to come out of their rabbit holes?

BThe guy who the wingnuts claim is a socialist is the one who actually presents the closest thing to supply side economics in this dog of a tax bill. Go figure. :rolleyes:


They claim he's a Socialist Nazi. Then they say he's a Nazi Socialist.
Then a Muslim Socialist Nazi, then.....


They sure have worked overtime to find a whole lot of new ways for them to say N****r.

[AAReagles]

… hey, guess how much this stimulus deal is costing? Where are all of our Tea Party brothers marching around with their AR-15's now??? Did Fox News not give the Mothership alert for them to come out of their rabbit holes?
:laugh:


Not to mention that it appears the Republicans still don’t get it. Instead of Really focusing on the economy and restoring some jobs into the ranks, they’re off media-grandstanding about “giving the american people what they wanted”, with regards about fighting the health care bill. Guess they must have forgotten about the conditions at Walter Reed Medical Center… that occurred on Bush’s watch.

Where were the tea-partiers then??

[janvanvurpa]

:laugh:


Not to mention that it appears the Republicans still don’t get it. Instead of Really focusing on the economy and restoring some jobs into the ranks, they’re off media-grandstanding about “giving the american people what they wanted”, with regards about fighting the health care bill. Guess they must have forgotten about the conditions at Walter Reed Medical Center… that occurred on Bush’s watch.

Where were the tea-partiers then??

Doubtless they had some trite "Support Our Troops" sticker on the trunk of their American made car, are you suggesting that they have duties or obligations above and beyond that?
Harrumph!

[Bob Riebe]

:laugh:


Not to mention that it appears the Republicans still don’t get it. Instead of Really focusing on the economy and restoring some jobs into the ranks, they’re off media-grandstanding about “giving the american people what they wanted”, with regards about fighting the health care bill. Guess they must have forgotten about the conditions at Walter Reed Medical Center… that occurred on Bush’s watch.

Where were the tea-partiers then??
Walter Reed has nothing to do with Obama care.

At the same time it is odd how the Democrat controlled Congress and Senate passed a bill allowing legislatures to not be bound to the Obama care bill like the rest of the populace is.

[AAReagles]

My abstract comment about Walter Reed Med Ctr., was the fact that we had spent some time already in Iraq & Afghanistan, sustaining casualties with life-altering disabilities, and yet the same (negligent) Administration that had oversight of the war, allowed that facility to deteriorate to unacceptable levels.

Yes, I remember that bit about Dems with their privileges to exempt themselves, but it’s not like the Repubs are any better with their track record of voting tendencies on bills. Remember John McCain when he wouldn’t endorse any of Sen. Jim Webb’s (Dem) bills that would assist the active troops and veterans?

I am a conservative, but that doesn’t mean I’m lock-step with the Repubs, any more than I was with the Dems when I was a liberal. Bottom line: I regard them all as the hierarchy.

[Bob Riebe]

My abstract comment about Walter Reed Med Ctr., was the fact that we had spent some time already in Iraq & Afghanistan, sustaining casualties with life-altering disabilities, and yet the same (negligent) Administration that had oversight of the war, allowed that facility to deteriorate to unacceptable levels.

Yes, I remember that bit about Dems with their privileges to exempt themselves, but it’s not like the Repubs are any better with their track record of voting tendencies on bills. Remember John McCain when he wouldn’t endorse any of Sen. Jim Webb’s (Dem) bills that would assist the active troops and veterans?

I am a conservative, but that doesn’t mean I’m lock-step with the Repubs, any more than I was with the Dems when I was a liberal. Bottom line: I regard them all as the hierarchy.

I agree.

[Rollo]

Well, Obama sided with the Republicans to continue the Bush Era tax cuts. I think the tax cuts should be extended to the middle class and allow Americans to get out of this economic downturn. I'm sure there will be concessions since the Democrats are not willing to vote on the extension as of yet.


If Taxation receipts for the government are cut, where would you propose to also cut government spending? And since people would lose their jobs as a result of the decrease in government spending, where would you propose they be employed?

[Bob Riebe]

If Taxation receipts for the government are cut, where would you propose to also cut government spending? And since people would lose their jobs as a result of the decrease in government spending, where would you propose they be employed?
Do not care, the majority of Obama's increased jobs, so far, have been government related jobs, with the golden government retirement plan.

Let them rot with the rest of us.

[AAReagles]

Doubtless they had some trite "Support Our Troops" sticker on the trunk of their American made car, are you suggesting that they have duties or obligations above and beyond that?
Harrumph!


Sorry, I overlooked this response, as I hadn’t noticed it earlier:

Are you suggesting that I made a blanket statement about the Tea Party? Why yes I did.

I’ll admit that NOT all T.P.s are in sync with gun-totting mentality, but their cause could have been a bit more productive without the drama. They should have been cleaning up their ranks, without the media finally questioning the behavior of some members.

I think initially the organization has potential, as long as people don’t get caught up in some pseudo-patriotic ideology... while casually forgetting that bit "all men are created equal."

More importantly, this sort of movement should have evolved sooner; when the govt response (on ALL levels) to Katrina was questionable to say the least.

Amongst other events.

[chuck34]

If Taxation receipts for the government are cut, where would you propose to also cut government spending?

Let's start with all the agencies that aren't mandated by the Constitution, and there are loads of them.


And since people would lose their jobs as a result of the decrease in government spending, where would you propose they be employed?

And what was the unemployment rate in 1960 when government spending was "only" ~30% of GDP compared to ~40% it is today? Government spending does not equal employment except in the public sector.

[Rollo]

Let's start with all the agencies that aren't mandated by the Constitution, and there are loads of them.

The four biggest broad areas of the budget are the Defence Spending, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and so called "Mandatory" spending. None of these except for Congressional Salaries, the salary of the President and the Judiciary are mandated by the Constitution (in Articles One, Two and Three).
However, if you were to start cutting Defence Spending and particularly Social Security spending through people's pensions, there'd be a public outcry.


Government spending does not equal employment except in the public sector.

When the government pays pension, benefits and other Social Security payments, people tend to buy things like food, clothing, electricty, water, gas etc. People who sell food, clothing, electricty, water, gas tend to be employed generally in the private sector.

Sorry but your rhetoric, collapses like a flan in a cupboard.

[Bob Riebe]

The four biggest broad areas of the budget are the Defence Spending, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and so called "Mandatory" spending. None of these except for Congressional Salaries, the salary of the President and the Judiciary are mandated by the Constitution (in Articles One, Two and Three).
However, if you were to start cutting Defence Spending and particularly Social Security spending through people's pensions, there'd be a public outcry.



When the government pays pension, benefits and other Social Security payments, people tend to buy things like food, clothing, electricty, water, gas etc. People who sell food, clothing, electricty, water, gas tend to be employed generally in the private sector.

Sorry but your rhetoric, collapses like a flan in a cupboard.
Which means the people are spending their own money, the U.S. government has NO money, it gets it by taking it from the people.

[chuck34]

The four biggest broad areas of the budget are the Defence Spending, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and so called "Mandatory" spending. None of these except for Congressional Salaries, the salary of the President and the Judiciary are mandated by the Constitution (in Articles One, Two and Three).
However, if you were to start cutting Defence Spending and particularly Social Security spending through people's pensions, there'd be a public outcry.



When the government pays pension, benefits and other Social Security payments, people tend to buy things like food, clothing, electricty, water, gas etc. People who sell food, clothing, electricty, water, gas tend to be employed generally in the private sector.

Sorry but your rhetoric, collapses like a flan in a cupboard.

We have choices to make. We are broke. There isn't enough money to pay for SS, medicare/caid etc. So do we cut back now, or completely collapse the system a bit down the road? And there are plenty of other agencies and beurocrocies that are not mandated. FDA, EPA, Department of Education, HHS, Healthand Human Services, on and on. And yes the Department of Defense could even use a bit of a haircut, as well as the State Department.

So are you saying that the only way those currently employeed by the government could ever make a living is by being employed by the government? You sure seem to be saying that ONLY the government can pay them salaries, pensions, etc. Let's take that to it's logical conclusion then, and employ everyone through the government. Are you proposing that everything will be a-ok if that happens? Should people be responsible for themselves, or should should the government take care of everyone?

[Roamy]

chuck
1. social security ain't going away for some time - could you imagine the revolt of the baby boomers against the greatest ponzi scheme ever.

Medicare ain't going away either.

Looks like we are going to have to dump the "Global Economy"
Also expect huge tariffs on incoming goods and heavily taxed foreign ownership dollars trying to leave. What 9 guys control the price of oil and we aren't one of them. The day of reckoning is coming very soon. We invented bankruptcy and now we are going to invent global bankruptcy when we default and just close the door and start over.

[janvanvurpa]

We have choices to make. We are broke. There isn't enough money to pay for SS, medicare/caid etc. So do we cut back now, or completely collapse the system a bit down the road? And there are plenty of other agencies and beurocrocies that are not mandated.


Maybe the corporate welfare in disguise known as Defense spending, you know the thing the good Republican Eisenhower warned of so long ago in my youth which accounts for around 51% of all the money the government spend, approx 1,4 trillion all told, do you suppose we could scale that back so instead of exceeding the defense spending for the next 23 countries it only exceeded the next 5??

[Rollo]

So are you saying that the only way those currently employeed by the government could ever make a living is by being employed by the government? You sure seem to be saying that ONLY the government can pay them salaries, pensions, etc.

In some cases, yes!
Some people who are being paid pensions like Retirement Insurance Benefits can only make a living by being paid by the government. They would argue that they have paid taxes their whole lives and are entitled to it.
There are such things as superannuation and this can be run privately, but for people already on the existing system, they can't very well be asked to go out and work in old age can they?

Conceivbly the Defense Department could be run by militia and indeed it was for a while, but the results would probably chaotic.


Let's take that to it's logical conclusion then, and employ everyone through the government. Are you proposing that everything will be a-ok if that happens? Should people be responsible for themselves, or should should the government take care of everyone?

I'm not proposing that everyone be employed through the government at all. I was discussing the current responsiblities that already exist for the government. Responsibilty is always more important than individual rights.

[chuck34]

Maybe the corporate welfare in disguise known as Defense spending, you know the thing the good Republican Eisenhower warned of so long ago in my youth which accounts for around 51% of all the money the government spend, approx 1,4 trillion all told, do you suppose we could scale that back so instead of exceeding the defense spending for the next 23 countries it only exceeded the next 5??

I agree, that's why I said in my last post the Defense could use a haircut

[chuck34]

In some cases, yes!
Some people who are being paid pensions like Retirement Insurance Benefits can only make a living by being paid by the government. They would argue that they have paid taxes their whole lives and are entitled to it.
There are such things as superannuation and this can be run privately, but for people already on the existing system, they can't very well be asked to go out and work in old age can they?

Conceivbly the Defense Department could be run by militia and indeed it was for a while, but the results would probably chaotic.



I'm not proposing that everyone be employed through the government at all. I was discussing the current responsiblities that already exist for the government. Responsibilty is always more important than individual rights.

Yes we have to honor our promises. So those that are already receiving pensions from the government, and are truley reliant on that income should continue to receive it. But that does not mean we must continue promising things we can not possibly provide.

But that does not mean that we should not start cutting back on government employment in ALL areas, and other budget cuts. If fact quite the opposite. In order to fullfill the promises that have already been made, we MUST cut spending in other areas. Bottom line is that we do NOT have the money to continue down this path. Either we make some painful cuts now, or EVERYTHING will be dramatically painful when the whole thing collapses. And make no mistake the course is leading us to collapse.

[janvanvurpa]

I agree, that's why I said in my last post the Defense could use a haircut


A Haircut implies or suggests a little trimming.

Granted, if unintentionally or intentionally America has a de facto Empire, and due to American extremist all or nothing mentality we had a hard time negotiating with people and thus have resorted to and become accustomed to threatening and using military force, sheer intertia continues this maddness of pissing away 51% of Federal budget on military things.

That is, and has been insane.

4-6% of world's population spending more than half the worlds spending on military...madness.

And it only can exist because how it works down to local level with Congressmen smoothing and schmoozing so called "Defense" corporations to keep open or expand their operations in THEIR districts---and the shenanigans that cities counties and states do, and the subsidies, tax deferrals, infrastructure expenditures for free---BS paid for by ME------so that the Congressman can say "I brought home these good jobs to our ___________" (fill in blank: city, county, state).