PDA

View Full Version : House Dems reject tax cut deal



linda22003
12-09-2010, 02:00 PM
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-taxcuts-120910,0,2729659.story

Wei Wu Wei
12-09-2010, 02:15 PM
lmao like it matters. this will pass the rich will get richer this is how it works.

linda22003
12-09-2010, 02:20 PM
It doesn't matter to me, but they are cutting off their noses to spite their faces. The cuts will expire, the Repubs will restore them after the new year, and everyone will see their paychecks get smaller in the meantime. Way to make the Republicans look like heroes. I swear, the Dems don't even know how to play the game anymore.

PoliCon
12-09-2010, 02:26 PM
lmao like it matters. this will pass the rich will get richer this is how it works.

Bullshit. Do you go always go out of your way to be a total retard? :rolleyes:

Rebel Yell
12-09-2010, 02:30 PM
Bullshit. Do you go always go out of your way to be a total retard? :rolleyes:

There are two types of people, those, like me, that want my employer to do well so that I have job security and those who hate their employer because they have more money than they do. Guess which one Wee Wee falls under.

Zathras
12-10-2010, 12:00 AM
lmao like it matters. this will pass the rich will get richer this is how it works.

Translation: I'm jealous of those who have more than I do so I want the government to take it away.

Rockntractor
12-10-2010, 12:11 AM
lmao like it matters. this will pass the rich will get richer this is how it works.

The stoop get stoopider!

PoliCon
12-10-2010, 12:14 AM
The stoop get stoopider!

He's already dumber than slug slime . . . . How much stoopider can he get?? :confused:

Madisonian
12-10-2010, 08:35 AM
The republicrats should be kissing Pelosi's ass for this one.
Now the incoming class of idealists can do the right thing and not only push for a permanent extension but also the budget cuts to pay for it.
Of course I am probably hoping for too much to actaully believe they have the stones to do it.

Wei Wu Wei
12-10-2010, 11:48 AM
holy crap Bernie Sanders is on the floor of the Senate doing an old-school real filibuster.

He's got pages and pages full of facts and he's speaking the truth.

idk how much it matters but Bernie Sanders owns we need more politicians like him

linda22003
12-10-2010, 11:51 AM
idk how much it matters but Bernie Sanders owns we need more politicians like him

God forbid.

Wei Wu Wei
12-10-2010, 11:57 AM
he's on cspan-2 right now, what is he saying that you disagree with? or is it just party labels that you care about?

Apache
12-10-2010, 12:11 PM
he's on cspan-2 right now, what is he saying that you disagree with? or is it just party labels that you care about?

The whole Robin Hood fallacy he's peddaling, that's what...:rolleyes:

linda22003
12-10-2010, 12:21 PM
He certainly doesn't like the idea that people might keep money for themselves that "should" be going to the government.

Wei Wu Wei
12-10-2010, 12:28 PM
Isn't it funny how the RADICAL LEFTIST SOCIALIST MEDIA isn't even covering this? I'm willing to bet some stupid celebrety news bullshit gets more headlines than any of this.

Apache
12-10-2010, 12:52 PM
Isn't it funny how the RADICAL LEFTIST SOCIALIST MEDIA isn't even covering this? I'm willing to bet some stupid celebrety news bullshit gets more headlines than any of this.

Just wait, they will...

PoliCon
12-10-2010, 12:59 PM
The republicrats should be kissing Pelosi's ass for this one.
Now the incoming class of idealists can do the right thing and not only push for a permanent extension but also the budget cuts to pay for it.
Of course I am probably hoping for too much to actaully believe they have the stones to do it.

Budget cuts to pay for what? Why are you using the leftist position that tax cuts need to be paid for? :confused:

PoliCon
12-10-2010, 01:01 PM
The whole Robin Hood fallacy he's peddaling, that's what...:rolleyes:

The lie being that Robin Hood took from the rich and gave to the poor. On the contrary - Robin Hood took from the GOVERNMENT and gave the unjust taxes back to the people from whom they had been extorted.

Wei Wu Wei
12-10-2010, 01:15 PM
Budget cuts to pay for what? Why are you using the leftist position that tax cuts need to be paid for? :confused:

When there is a huge deficit....

Wei Wu Wei
12-10-2010, 01:16 PM
The lie being that Robin Hood took from the rich and gave to the poor. On the contrary - Robin Hood took from the GOVERNMENT and gave the unjust taxes back to the people from whom they had been extorted.

The Government works for the interests of the Wealthy.

Apache
12-10-2010, 01:21 PM
The Government works for the interests of the Wealthy.

Especially THIS adminstration...;)

Apache
12-10-2010, 01:23 PM
When there is a huge deficit....

that funds do nothing, feel good, redundant, ham-fisted government programs...

PoliCon
12-10-2010, 01:23 PM
When there is a huge deficit....

Deficite or not - tax cuts do not need to be paid for. Spending needs to be cut to match income levels. FUCKTARD. :rolleyes:

PoliCon
12-10-2010, 01:26 PM
The Government works for the interests of the Wealthy.

In your class warfare world. And even if it did - the interests of the wealthy are also the interests of the WORKERS as well. Poor people do not hire employees dumbass. When was the last time you saw a bum with a secretary or a gardener or factory workers?? :rolleyes:

Wei Wu Wei
12-10-2010, 01:43 PM
Especially THIS adminstration...;)

Just about every administration in the last half century.

Wei Wu Wei
12-10-2010, 01:44 PM
Deficite or not - tax cuts do not need to be paid for. Spending needs to be cut to match income levels. FUCKTARD. :rolleyes:

Why not? Other than saying "I think this"?


What's wrong with raising taxes to pay for government expenditures?

Wei Wu Wei
12-10-2010, 01:48 PM
In your class warfare world. And even if it did - the interests of the wealthy are also the interests of the WORKERS as well.

lmao yes keeping labor costs as low as possible and fighting against any sort of health care or education plans for working people is in their best interests.



Poor people do not hire employees dumbass. When was the last time you saw a bum with a secretary or a gardener or factory workers?? :rolleyes:

Poor people spend a greater share of their income, because they have to. There are millions more poor people than there are wealthy people. Poor people drive demand. Demand produces jobs.

Evidence: Look at the corporate profit margins this year, they've been record setting.

Look at the top 1% over the last decade, they've been doing extraordinarily well through this entire recession.

According to you, this means that we should have had non-stop job production because employers are keeping more of their money? Oh wait no, because that's not how it works. Employers are not going to create new jobs simply because they make more money, if there isn't an increase in demand. Employers do not want to hire people to stand around, they only hire people when they need to in order to keep their production going.

Demand drives job creation.

Zathras
12-10-2010, 01:51 PM
Why not? Other than saying "I think this"?

Because, every time the TAX RATE has been lowered by the government, TAX REVENUES to the government actually increase, not decrease. It worked under Coolidge, Kenedy, Reagan and Bush.


What's wrong with raising taxes to pay for government expenditures?

Because it doesn't work. You get more money coming in via taxes when people have more money to spend, not less.

Zathras
12-10-2010, 01:53 PM
More bullshit reasons to hide his jealousy of those who have more than he does.

Fixed.

Wei Wu Wei
12-10-2010, 01:56 PM
Because, every time the TAX RATE has been lowered by the government, TAX REVENUES to the government actually increase, not decrease.


What was the budget Surplus/Deficit in 2000?

What was the budget Surplus/Deficit in 2008?

Since 1999 there has been zero net job creation.

PoliCon
12-10-2010, 02:03 PM
Why not? Other than saying "I think this"?


What's wrong with raising taxes to pay for government expenditures?

Well first off - the money they are taking in through taxes IS OURS FUCKTARD NOT THEIRS. And you and the rest of the left operate under the assumption that government expenditures are sacrosanct. Well they're not. They need to stop wasting our money and cut spending.

PoliCon
12-10-2010, 02:08 PM
lmao yes keeping labor costs as low as possible and fighting against any sort of health care or education plans for working people is in their best interests.


Your education and your healthcare are YOUR responsibility. Not the governments. Not your employers. YOURS. We all wait for you to grow the fuck up and realize that.


Poor people spend a greater share of their income, because they have to. There are millions more poor people than there are wealthy people. Poor people drive demand. Demand produces jobs. As long as there are rich people there to supply the demand through making companies and the FUCKING JOBS otherwise Etheopia would be a fucking paradise. :rolleyes: SWEET AND MERCIFUL LORD you're fucking stupid.


Evidence: Look at the corporate profit margins this year, they've been record setting. so?


Look at the top 1% over the last decade, they've been doing extraordinarily well through this entire recession. And you blame them? :rolleyes: Blame the fucking government who created this fucking recession dumbass.


According to you, this means that we should have had non-stop job production because employers are keeping more of their money? Oh wait no, because that's not how it works. Employers are not going to create new jobs simply because they make more money, if there isn't an increase in demand. Employers do not want to hire people to stand around, they only hire people when they need to in order to keep their production going.

Demand drives job creation. When the government gets out of the fucking way again - when people know it's safe to invest and create jobs again - they will do so.

Wei Wu Wei
12-10-2010, 02:12 PM
As long as there are rich people there to supply the demand through making companies and the FUCKING JOBS otherwise Etheopia would be a fucking paradise. :rolleyes: SWEET AND MERCIFUL LORD you're fucking stupid.

Yes, our economic system depends on both owners/employers and also workers. Their interests are tied together, but they are not parallel. Workers need work, and business owners need workers. Policies or systems that are entirely one-sided will not work, and currently our economic system has all of it's chips stacked on the Big Business side



When the government gets out of the fucking way again - when people know it's safe to invest and create jobs again - they will do so.

Why create jobs when demand is low? If working and middle class American cannot afford to buy consumer goods or services, why would business owners who provide these goods and services hire more people??

Wei Wu Wei
12-10-2010, 02:13 PM
Well I'm making more money so I better create some jobs! Oh no sorry I don't have any work for you to do but don't worry I'll still pay you to stand around aimlessly because Obama let me keep my low tax rates!

linda22003
12-10-2010, 02:16 PM
[QUOTE=PoliCon;343883]And you and the rest of the left operate under the assumption that government expenditures are sacrosanct. We'll their not. QUOTE]

http://rlv.zcache.com/there_their_and_theyre_tshirt-p235250795253403358qrja_400.jpg

Wei Wu Wei
12-10-2010, 02:24 PM
Dodging all substance and resorting to insults because of a total lack of understanding combined with a death grip on a kernel of Proud Ignorance.

Fixed

hampshirebrit
12-10-2010, 02:27 PM
And you and the rest of the left operate under the assumption that government expenditures are sacrosanct. We'll their not.

http://rlv.zcache.com/there_their_and_theyre_tshirt-p235250795253403358qrja_400.jpg

I'm still wondering what it is exactly that PoliCon teaches.

I guess we can scratch English off the list. ;)

Bleda
12-10-2010, 02:30 PM
[QUOTE=PoliCon;343883]And you and the rest of the left operate under the assumption that government expenditures are sacrosanct. We'll their not. QUOTE]

http://rlv.zcache.com/there_their_and_theyre_tshirt-p235250795253403358qrja_400.jpg

You forgot the 'their,' too.

PoliCon
12-10-2010, 02:45 PM
Let He Who Is Without Typo Cast The First Stone.

PoliCon
12-10-2010, 02:47 PM
I'm still wondering what it is exactly that PoliCon teaches.

I guess we can scratch English off the list. ;)

I've said more than once what I teach. Pay attention. :p AND BESIDES - even the great and smug Linda#s screws up from time to time. :p

Molon Labe
12-10-2010, 02:47 PM
lmao like it matters. this will pass the rich will get richer this is how it works.

The rich don't make their money because the get or don't get a tax cut.

PoliCon
12-10-2010, 02:49 PM
holy crap Bernie Sanders is on the floor of the Senate doing an old-school real filibuster.

He's got pages and pages full of facts and he's speaking the truth.

idk how much it matters but Bernie Sanders owns we need more politicians like him

They have TONS of politicians like him in Cuba. You should immigrate.

Madisonian
12-10-2010, 03:10 PM
Budget cuts to pay for what? Why are you using the leftist position that tax cuts need to be paid for? :confused:

OK, I shoud not have used the exact term "pay for".
I should have said that they could reduce the spending levels by minimally the amount of the decrease in projected revenue based on the extension of the current tax rates to make this at the least a revenue neutral bill.

Why are you using the leftist term of tax cuts since this bill is an extension of the current tax rates, not a cut in them?

Edited to add.
I am all for extending the currect rates (those in effect as of today, 12/10/2010 and have been for the last almost 10 years) but for the Republicrats to extend those rates without at least attempting to offset the projected revenue decrease will not only be potentially politically suicidal, but show them to be just as fiscally reckless as the Dems they are replacing.
That does not bode well for the claim of "smaller government" that the Tea Party has been trying to champion.
But then again, Bonehead is setting Captain Porkulus up as next appropriations committee chair, so I guess we are still financially fucked.

PoliCon
12-10-2010, 03:14 PM
OK, I shoud not have used the exact term "pay for".
I should have said that they could reduce the spending levels by minimally the amount of the decrease in projected revenue based on the extension of the current tax rates to make this at the least a revenue neutral bill.

Why are you using the leftist term of tax cuts since this bill is an extension of the current tax rates, not a cut in them?

Tax cuts historically result in INCREASED not decreased revenues regardless of the projections.

Madisonian
12-10-2010, 03:39 PM
Tax cuts historically result in INCREASED not decreased revenues regardless of the projections.

So you are not saying the government should spend less, just that by extending the current rates it will allow them to steal more via a larger pool of suckers.
Sorry, not buying the bullshit.
The government has no need for more money, regardless of the source.
The government has no right to more money, regardless of the source.

This idea of justifying tax cuts as a way to increase revenues and enabling even more bloated spending nonsense is hyperbole.
There is 1 and only 1 reason to cut taxes, and that is because it is not their god damn money, period.

Every time I hear some phony conservative talk about historical increases in revenue because of decreases in rates like that is somehow a good thing it just blows my admittedly little mind.
As far as I an concerned, they can all piss off because they can't grasp the concept that government spending while a necessary evil is still evil none the less.

lacarnut
12-10-2010, 04:18 PM
So you are not saying the government should spend less, just that by extending the current rates it will allow them to steal more via a larger pool of suckers.
Sorry, not buying the bullshit.
The government has no need for more money, regardless of the source.
The government has no right to more money, regardless of the source.

This idea of justifying tax cuts as a way to increase revenues and enabling even more bloated spending nonsense is hyperbole.
There is 1 and only 1 reason to cut taxes, and that is because it is not their god damn money, period.

Every time I hear some phony conservative talk about historical increases in revenue because of decreases in rates like that is somehow a good thing it just blows my admittedly little mind.
As far as I an concerned, they can all piss off because they can't grasp the concept that government spending while a necessary evil is still evil none the less.

Correct. Mentality of many Republicans......Tax Cuts==more revenue==more money in the Treasury so that they can piss it away. Spending cuts should be the order of the day. Federal, state and county employees need a big haircut.

One day we will be like Greece, Ireland, Portugal, etc. The only difference between us and them is we can print money and they can not. Our debt level is higher than theirs. Our spending is way out of control. Plus, we sure has hell can not grow our way out the economic mess we are in without curtailing spending. No one wants to bite the bullet though. Everyone is looking out for me, me, me. .

PoliCon
12-10-2010, 04:33 PM
So you are not saying the government should spend less, just that by extending the current rates it will allow them to steal more via a larger pool of suckers.
Sorry, not buying the bullshit.
The government has no need for more money, regardless of the source.
The government has no right to more money, regardless of the source.

This idea of justifying tax cuts as a way to increase revenues and enabling even more bloated spending nonsense is hyperbole.
There is 1 and only 1 reason to cut taxes, and that is because it is not their god damn money, period.

Every time I hear some phony conservative talk about historical increases in revenue because of decreases in rates like that is somehow a good thing it just blows my admittedly little mind.
As far as I an concerned, they can all piss off because they can't grasp the concept that government spending while a necessary evil is still evil none the less.
Who the fuck said anything about justifying spending??:rolleyes: Try not to put words in other peoples mouths. Reality is tax cuts are not cuts in revenues nor or they something that needs to be 'paid for.' Pending cuts are a different - albeit related issue - from tax cuts.

Madisonian
12-10-2010, 05:33 PM
Who the fuck said anything about justifying spending??:rolleyes: Try not to put words in other peoples mouths. Reality is tax cuts are not cuts in revenues nor or they something that needs to be 'paid for.' Pending cuts are a different - albeit related issue - from tax cuts.

And the reality is that this stinking pile of dog doo doo includes much more than just maintaining the current marginal rates.
The Repubs also bought into...
Added tax credits for ethanol and other alternative fuels.
35% estate tax
13 month extension of don't feel like getting a job benefits
Zero, zip, nada budget cuts
2 year instead of possible permanent extension
Extension of paying tax refunds to people that pay zero in taxes in the first place

Yepper, that is one hell of a deal our buddies got for us. Now maybe keeping the marginal tax rates will not add to the deficit, but the rest of that crap sure will and that is not what the Republicrats campaigned on but it is about what I expected from the jellyfish.

malloc
12-10-2010, 06:10 PM
So you are not saying the government should spend less, just that by extending the current rates it will allow them to steal more via a larger pool of suckers.
Sorry, not buying the bullshit.
The government has no need for more money, regardless of the source.
The government has no right to more money, regardless of the source.


The government needs to increase revenues and cut spending because we have a mountain of debt to tackle and it's not going to pay back itself. That is the reason I support higher government revenues through a broader taxpayer base. I don't like the idea of more suckers losing their money any more than I like the idea of giving politicians the chance to piss away the higher revenues an economic recovery would bring into the treasury. However, the debt must be paid down, and the deficits must be closed.



Zero, zip, nada budget cuts


The Republicans can't work spending cuts, discretionary or otherwise, into any deals yet because they haven't yet taken the helm. It's the Republican minority that is trying to get a deal through before January 1st, to prevent an increase in payroll deductions. I wouldn't accuse them of dropping the ball on spending cuts until they at least are handed the ball to drop.

lacarnut
12-10-2010, 06:31 PM
And the reality is that this stinking pile of dog doo doo includes much more than just maintaining the current marginal rates.
The Repubs also bought into...
Added tax credits for ethanol and other alternative fuels.
35% estate tax
13 month extension of don't feel like getting a job benefits
Zero, zip, nada budget cuts
2 year instead of possible permanent extension
Extension of paying tax refunds to people that pay zero in taxes in the first place

Yepper, that is one hell of a deal our buddies got for us. Now maybe keeping the marginal tax rates will not add to the deficit, but the rest of that crap sure will and that is not what the Republicrats campaigned on but it is about what I expected from the jellyfish.

You are wasting your breath. So called conservatives think this is a good deal or the best deal that they could get without even putting up a fight. Democrats are laughing their ass off at the weak kneeded Repubs.The House Repubs should reject this pile of crap and pass a clean bill without all the Democratic goodies on it on Jan 1.

Wei Wu Wei
12-10-2010, 06:47 PM
HOLY SHIT!

Sanders is still speaking, this is over 8 hours already. I've had to miss parts but I've seen most of it and he's efficiently and succintly destroyed all conservative economic arguments I've never seen this much ownage on the floor of the senate.

I watch C-Span when important debates are going but I've never seen something like this.

If more people didn't have the attention span of a child maybe this would have more impact but my god it's good to see some people are speaking the truth.

malloc
12-10-2010, 07:40 PM
I've had to miss parts but I've seen most of it and he's efficiently and succintly destroyed all conservative economic arguments I've never seen this much ownage on the floor of the senate.


You've demonstrated time and again on this board that you don't understand the science of economics, so how on earth could you possibly tell who is "destroying" any given argument?

PoliCon
12-10-2010, 08:09 PM
You've demonstrated time and again on this board that you don't understand the science of economics, so how on earth could you possibly tell who is "destroying" any given argument?

QFT

PoliCon
12-10-2010, 08:16 PM
HOLY SHIT!

Sanders is still speaking, this is over 8 hours already. I've had to miss parts but I've seen most of it and he's efficiently and succintly destroyed all conservative economic arguments I've never seen this much ownage on the floor of the senate.

I watch C-Span when important debates are going but I've never seen something like this.

If more people didn't have the attention span of a child maybe this would have more impact but my god it's good to see some people are speaking the truth.

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/30/vader-fail.jpg

Madisonian
12-10-2010, 11:15 PM
The government needs to increase revenues and cut spending because we have a mountain of debt to tackle and it's not going to pay back itself. That is the reason I support higher government revenues through a broader taxpayer base. I don't like the idea of more suckers losing their money any more than I like the idea of giving politicians the chance to piss away the higher revenues an economic recovery would bring into the treasury. However, the debt must be paid down, and the deficits must be closed.



The Republicans can't work spending cuts, discretionary or otherwise, into any deals yet because they haven't yet taken the helm. It's the Republican minority that is trying to get a deal through before January 1st, to prevent an increase in payroll deductions. I wouldn't accuse them of dropping the ball on spending cuts until they at least are handed the ball to drop.

If they cut spending and propose a budget that is less than current revenues, then I would be more supportive of temporary measures that were aimed specifically at the debt, but this has not been the current history of either party and this latest compromise does nothing to instill confidence that they are committed to a sound fiscal policy.

Even if the rates went to pre-tax cut levels on January 1, the Repubs could pass a retroactive bill without the so called Stimulus II additions that Obama has added to the current bill. This bill is also a knife in the back to the newly elected Republicans because it denies them the chance to do what they believe is right and what they campaigned on. It seems that Boehner and the current faux conservatives don't want the new kids on the block to come in be able to take a crack on doing what they could not or would not do even when Boehner and a lot of the other RINOs had the chance pre-2006. They have to keep that power structure intact and heaven forbid any snot nosed newcomers should challenge them or show them up.

This bill is still toxic waste any way you add it up.

Rockntractor
12-10-2010, 11:19 PM
If they cut spending and propose a budget that is less than current revenues, then I would be more supportive of temporary measures that were aimed specifically at the debt, but this has not been the current history of either party and this latest compromise does nothing to instill confidence that they are committed to a sound fiscal policy.

Even if the rates went to pre-tax cut levels on January 1, the Repubs could pass a retroactive bill without the so called Stimulus II additions that Obama has added to the current bill. This bill is also a knife in the back to the newly elected Republicans because it denies them the chance to do what they believe is right and what they campaigned on. It seems that Boehner and the current faux conservatives don't want the new kids on the block to come in be able to take a crack on doing what they could not or would not do even when Boehner and a lot of the other RINOs had the chance pre-2006. They have to keep that power structure intact and heaven forbid any snot nosed newcomers should challenge them or show them up.

This bill is still toxic waste any way you add it up.

To put this on a personal level it would be like me cutting back on my hours and then taking out a new loan for a summer home when I'm already fighting to pay bills.

Madisonian
12-11-2010, 12:06 AM
To put this on a personal level it would be like me cutting back on my hours and then taking out a new loan for a summer home when I'm already fighting to pay bills.

Sorry, not following that analogy at all:confused:

Rockntractor
12-11-2010, 12:10 AM
Sorry, not following that analogy at all:confused:

Lower your income and increase your spending? I'm all for keeping the tax rate the same, but they have included in this bill billions in new spending. If your income is going to stay the same or decrease, you spend less and borrow less, why is that hard to understand?

Madisonian
12-11-2010, 12:22 AM
Lower your income and increase your spending? I'm all for keeping the tax rate the same, but they have included in this bill billions in new spending. If your income is going to stay the same or decrease, you spend less and borrow less, why is that hard to understand?

Ok...
I thought your analogy was to my reply, not to the proposed bill, hence the confusion. I understand that this is exactly what is happening in this bill and for some silly ass reason the conjobservatives are for it.

It's been a long night and I still am trying to figure out what stinking of hazelnut means from a different post.:confused: