PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Obama: 80 percent of the public supports Democrats' demand for tax increases.


bevischief
07-15-2011, 01:30 PM
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/171743-obama-public-sold-on-tax-increases-in-debt-ceiling-deal

Obama: Public is 'sold' on tax increases in a debt-ceiling deal
By Sam Youngman and Alicia M. Cohn - 07/15/11 11:54 AM ET

President Obama on Friday kept up the pressure on Republicans to agree to revenue increases in a deal to raise the debt ceiling, claiming 80 percent of the public supports Democrats' demand for tax increases.

"The American people are sold," Obama said. "The problem is members of Congress are dug in ideologically."

Throughout the press conference, Obama blasted Republicans for ignoring what he said is the will of the American people by rejecting tax increases that would balance out spending cuts in a debt package.

"This is not an issue of salesmanship to the American people," Obama said.

"I hope [Republicans are] not just listening to lobbyists and special interests ... I hope they're listening to the American people as well," Obama said, citing "poll after poll" showing Republican voters, as well as Democrats, believe in taking "a balanced approach" — including both increased revenues and spending cuts in a plan to cut the deficit.

Obama repeated his warning that the country is "running out of time" to avert a financial “Armageddon.”

"We should not even be this close on a deadline," Obama said. "This is something we should have accomplished earlier."

The president's press conference came the day after he wrapped up debt-ceiling negotiations at the White House and gave congressional leaders 24 to 36 hours to consult with members on a possible compromise. Obama is pushing for a sweeping package that would save $4 trillion over 10 years.

Obama said he is still pushing for a “big” deal to raise the debt ceiling by the Aug. 2 deadline despite the hardening of positions on Capitol Hill.

"I always have hope," Obama said. "Don't you remember my campaign?"

The president signaled he is opposed to the “Cut, Cap and Balance” proposal that House Republicans coalesced around Friday morning, and he challenged the GOP to "be ambitious" in proposing a package to cut the deficit.

"If they show me a serious plan, I'm ready to move, even if it requires some tough sacrifices on my part," Obama said.

eazyb81
07-15-2011, 01:35 PM
Jesus, it is astounding how fucking clueless he is.

The R's better stand strong on this.

Jaric
07-15-2011, 01:38 PM
It's getting harder and harder to sort out the hyperbole from the outright lies.

And if Obama thinks 80% of Americans want to pay higher taxes I want whatever he's smoking.

eazyb81
07-15-2011, 01:39 PM
Didn't someone post the latest Gallup poll on this issue where only ~5% of American were in favor of tax increases?

I'd love to see his data.

Radar Chief
07-15-2011, 01:39 PM
So has anyone produced a link to this poll that says “80% want higher taxes”? I’ve seen that mentioned before but have no idea where it’s coming from.

Chief Roundup
07-15-2011, 01:44 PM
Nobody wants to pay higher taxes especially the rich which is where the increase needs to come from.
I know I would rather see my taxes go up than see members of my family lose thier SS and or disability.

mlyonsd
07-15-2011, 01:45 PM
Obama meant to say "80% of Americans want to see somebody else's taxes increased".

alanm
07-15-2011, 01:47 PM
Great, Now he's gone bat shit crazy.

Brock
07-15-2011, 01:47 PM
LOL.

ChiTown
07-15-2011, 01:49 PM
Obama meant to say "80% of Americans want to see somebody else's taxes increased".

:LOL:

Should have read 99%........

mlyonsd
07-15-2011, 01:49 PM
The sad thing is the best way to reduce the debt is raise everyone's taxes. Too bad he's not leadership material enough to sell it though.

mlyonsd
07-15-2011, 01:51 PM
:LOL:

Should have read 99%........

Teleprompter snafu again.

BillSelfsTrophycase
07-15-2011, 01:54 PM
I would be open to tax increases, but not until we see some meaningful spending cuts. Until then they can go fuck themselves

go bowe
07-15-2011, 01:54 PM
The sad thing is the best way to reduce the debt is raise everyone's taxes. Too bad he's not leadership material enough to sell it though.
would going back to the pre-bush tax rates be acceptable?

as i recall, everyone got some tax cut then, so bringing them back to that level would "increase" taxes for most everyone and make a substantial dent in the deficit...

Brock
07-15-2011, 01:58 PM
This idea that the government doesn't get enough money from us is false and only the stupid believe it. Live within your means, scumbags, and quit looking at us like we're sheep to be sheared.

ChiefsCountry
07-15-2011, 01:59 PM
Just think of all you dumbasses who voted for this clown.

go bowe
07-15-2011, 02:02 PM
Teleprompter snafu again.

:LOL: :LOL: :LOL:

ChiTown
07-15-2011, 02:02 PM
would going back to the pre-bush tax rates be acceptable?

as i recall, everyone got some tax cut then, so bringing them back to that level would "increase" taxes for most everyone and make a substantial dent in the deficit...

F That. I pay the highest rate already, and I'll be gawdamned if I would be ok with paying anymore. Taxes aren't the issue. SPENDING is the issue. Address the spending first, and then let's look at the taxes.

go bowe
07-15-2011, 02:04 PM
Just think of all you dumbasses who voted for this clown.

well, not everybody who voted for him is a dumbass...

well, almost nobody...

bevischief
07-15-2011, 02:06 PM
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/taxes/july_2011/55_oppose_tax_hike_in_debt_ceiling_deal

55% Oppose Tax Hike In Debt Ceiling Deal
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Email a Friend Email to a Friend ShareThis
Advertisement

As the Beltway politicians try to figure out how they will raise the debt ceiling and for how long, most voters oppose including tax hikes in the deal.

Just 34% think a tax hike should be included in any legislation to raise the debt ceiling. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 55% disagree and say it should not. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

There is a huge partisan divide on the question. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of Democrats want a tax hike in the deal while 82% of Republicans do not. Among those not affiliated with either major political party, 35% favor a tax hike and 51% are opposed.

Americans who earn more than $75,000 a year are evenly divided as to whether a tax hike should be included in the debt ceiling deal. Those who earn less are opposed to including tax hikes.

Voters remain very concerned about the debt ceiling issue. Sixty-nine percent (69%) believe that it would be bad for the economy if a failure to raise the debt ceiling led to government defaults. Only 6% believe it would be good for theeconomy. Fourteen percent (14%) believe it would have no impact and 11% are notsure. These figures are little changed from a few weeks ago.

At the same time, however, 52% believe it would beeven more dangerous to raise the debt ceiling without making significant cuts in government spending. Thirty-seven percent (37%) take the opposite view and believe a government default would be more dangerous.

(Want a free daily e-mail update ? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are alsoavailable on Twitter or Facebook.

The national telephone survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on July 12-13, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points witha 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC.See methodology.

Eighty-five percent (85%) of voters are following the debt ceiling story at least Somewhat Closely. That figure includes 48% who are following it Very Closely. Older voters are following the story more closely than younger voters.

Thirty-eightpercent (38%) believe the president has done a good or an excellent job handling the debt ceiling debate while 41% say he has done a poor job. Predictably, 74% of Democrats give him good or excellent marks while 71% of Republicans say he’s doing a poor job. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 31% give the president good or excellent marks on this topic while 42% say he’s doing a poor job.

Overall, the president’s Job Approval ratings have been remarkably stable for the past year-and-a-half. With only modest exceptions, his totalapproval numbers have stayed in the mid-to-high 40s since the end of 2009.

By a 59% to19% margin, Political Class voters favor a tax hike in the debt ceiling deal. By a 68% to 22% margin, Mainstream voters take the opposite view (for more on the Political Class-Mainstream classification, click here.

Data released earlier shows that most Americans believe tax hikes are bad for the economy and spending cuts are good.

Consumer confidence has fallen to the lowest level in twoyears and most Americans now believe their own personal finances are getting worse.

HonestChieffan
07-15-2011, 02:07 PM
He has to sell it as Bush Fault. His own record is so abysmal.

Obama has spent over $4.5 trillion dollars in only 2 ˝ years which is two trillion more than Bush did during his eight years in office.

He is either delusional or just a plain Liar. Its time someone in Washington hit this out of the park and bury him in his twisted rhetoric and lies.

Chief Roundup
07-15-2011, 02:18 PM
would going back to the pre-bush tax rates be acceptable?

as i recall, everyone got some tax cut then, so bringing them back to that level would "increase" taxes for most everyone and make a substantial dent in the deficit...

Yeah that is a start but the rich people don't want that. They want to take away from the poor that don't have anything already. So lets take the last that they have and put them on the street.
Next they will be wanting to take away Federal Student Aid.

go bowe
07-15-2011, 02:19 PM
F That. I pay the highest rate already, and I'll be gawdamned if I would be ok with paying anymore. Taxes aren't the issue. SPENDING is the issue. Address the spending first, and then let's look at the taxes.

the only real savings has to come from defense, ss, medicare and medicaid...

ss can be reformed to reduce or eliminate its growth over a period of years by increasing the retirement age, removing the cap on payroll taxes, and partially means test benefits...

the medicare eligibility age can be increased to match increases in the ss retirement age, drug prices can be negotiated, and premiums can be increased...

defense can be cut starting with the new fighters that are too expensive to use in combat, followed by large reductions in naval ships and stopping construction of ships whose purpose was the cold war and the danger of ibm attacks...

unnecessary bases can be closed or greatly reduced in scope, troop levels could be decreased if we would get out and stay out of wars, and we could scrap all the remaining nuclear warheads and missles that are no longer needed to defend us against any current threat...

times are tough and cuts in the military are going to be necessary...

now, politically, do i think all these things will happen anytime in the near future? no i don't...

ChiTown
07-15-2011, 02:20 PM
Yeah that is a start but the rich people don't want that. They want to take away from the poor that don't have anything already. So lets take the last that they have and put them on the street.
Next they will be wanting to take away Federal Student Aid.

:spock:

Nice analysis, Simpleton.

mlyonsd
07-15-2011, 02:40 PM
would going back to the pre-bush tax rates be acceptable?

as i recall, everyone got some tax cut then, so bringing them back to that level would "increase" taxes for most everyone and make a substantial dent in the deficit...

Throw in a balanced budget ammendment and we'll talk.

ROYC75
07-15-2011, 02:42 PM
Obama: Eric, don't call my bluff!


Obama has nothing, that's why he is bluffing. Most people usually lose when some one calls their bluff.

Now 80% ?

He is trying to pander to the public that he is on top of this.

ROYC75
07-15-2011, 02:43 PM
Throw in a balanced budget ammendment and we'll talk.

I could go back the to the pre Bush tax cuts, major cuts across the board and a balanced budget.

Sounds like a plan to me.

Chief Roundup
07-15-2011, 02:44 PM
:spock:

Nice analysis, Simpleton.

Well when you are making 2500 a week and you are losing 750 or so a week in taxes you still have plenty. I know I did. So raise those taxes to a grand and i still have 1500 a week. If a person can't live on that then they are being greedy or selfish.

KC Dan
07-15-2011, 02:50 PM
Well when you are making 2500 a week and you are losing 750 or so a week in taxes you still have plenty. I know I did. So raise those taxes to a grand and i still have 1500 a week. If a person can't live on that then they are being greedy or selfish.Who earned that damn money? You or the gov't???

Chief Roundup
07-15-2011, 02:55 PM
Who earned that damn money? You or the gov't???

I earned that money. But the county and those who came before me deserve a fair share. If it wasn't for them I would not be in a position to earn that money.
There are people that can't earn for themselves. I am willing to do my part.
There is a difference between what a person needs and what a person wants.

Brock
07-15-2011, 03:02 PM
Well when you are making 2500 a week and you are losing 750 or so a week in taxes you still have plenty. I know I did. So raise those taxes to a grand and i still have 1500 a week. If a person can't live on that then they are being greedy or selfish.

You have been indoctrinated well, comrade.

Taco John
07-15-2011, 03:04 PM
Count me in among the supposed 20% who would like to see spending cuts as the primary solution before raising taxes on anybody.

Taco John
07-15-2011, 03:06 PM
Well when you are making 2500 a week and you are losing 750 or so a week in taxes you still have plenty. I know I did. So raise those taxes to a grand and i still have 1500 a week. If a person can't live on that then they are being greedy or selfish.

Holy shit do you have kids? I can't believe I'd read such pap from someone who has kids. You're like a college student with no real paycheck or responsibility to balance a checkbook, right?

KC Dan
07-15-2011, 03:07 PM
I earned that money. But the county and those who came before me deserve a fair share. If it wasn't for them I would not be in a position to earn that money.
There are people that can't earn for themselves. I am willing to do my part.
There is a difference between what a person needs and what a person wants.wow, just wow....

SNR
07-15-2011, 03:13 PM
Yeah that is a start but the rich people don't want that. They want to take away from the poor that don't have anything already. So lets take the last that they have and put them on the street.
Next they will be wanting to take away Federal Student Aid.:spock:

The Federal Government JUST took over the the entire student loan industry when they passed the health care bill. If they want to find out why some students can't afford to go to college, that might be a good place to start.

Chief Roundup
07-15-2011, 03:16 PM
Holy shit do you have kids? I can't believe I'd read such pap from someone who has kids. You're like a college student with no real paycheck or responsibility to balance a checkbook, right?

I am a 40 year old with 4 children. We are raising our first grandchild.
Yes I am enrolled in college. Since I am no longer able to do my previous career.

loochy
07-15-2011, 03:17 PM
I earned that money. But the county and those who came before me deserve a fair share. If it wasn't for them I would not be in a position to earn that money.
There are people that can't earn for themselves. I am willing to do my part.
There is a difference between what a person needs and what a person wants.

This has me at a loss for words.

BucEyedPea
07-15-2011, 03:17 PM
It's getting harder and harder to sort out the hyperbole from the outright lies.

And if Obama thinks 80% of Americans want to pay higher taxes I want whatever he's smoking.

It's probably the ones who want other people taxed but not them. Like the "Tax the Rich" crowd.
He plays on their ignorance. Besides, there is such a thing as leadership so it's pragmatic if it would hurt the economy despite what the huddled masses think.

Chief Roundup
07-15-2011, 03:18 PM
I am not saying we don't need a balance budget we do. I just don't agree that we need to take it from those on SS and disability that have no other means to support themselves.
There are a lot of other ways. Cutting Foriegn Aid etc. We need to take care of our own before anyone else.

BucEyedPea
07-15-2011, 03:19 PM
I earned that money. But the county and those who came before me deserve a fair share. If it wasn't for them I would not be in a position to earn that money.
There are people that can't earn for themselves. I am willing to do my part.
There is a difference between what a person needs and what a person wants.

Then what you need to do is give more to charity if you want to do more. Otherwise, you want to use other people's money.

loochy
07-15-2011, 03:20 PM
I am not saying we don't need a balance budget we do. I just don't agree that we need to take it from those on SS and disability that have no other means to support themselves.

Take from everyone.

There are a lot of other ways. Cutting Foriegn Aid etc. We need to take care of our own before anyone else.

I agree. F the wars and F the foreign aid.

Garcia Bronco
07-15-2011, 03:21 PM
80 percent huh? Bullshit

KC Dan
07-15-2011, 03:21 PM
I am not saying we don't need a balance budget we do. I just don't agree that we need to take it from those on SS and disability that have no other means to support themselves.
There are a lot of other ways. Cutting Foriegn Aid etc. We need to take care of our own before anyone else.Have you heard or read of ONE actual proposal that proposed cutting SS or Medicare benefits for anyone over 55 years old? Any proposals?

Jaric
07-15-2011, 03:25 PM
Obama meant to say "80% of Americans want to see somebody else's taxes increased".

This.

Chief Roundup
07-15-2011, 03:27 PM
Have you heard or read of ONE actual proposal that proposed cutting SS or Medicare benefits for anyone over 55 years old? Any proposals?

A proposal no. I do know that there may not be any money to pay those people in August.

eazyb81
07-15-2011, 03:30 PM
A proposal no. I do know that there may not be any money to pay those people in August.

No, you don't know that because it is not true.

Jaric
07-15-2011, 03:30 PM
It's probably the ones who want other people taxed but not them. Like the "Tax the Rich" crowd.
He plays on their ignorance. Besides, there is such a thing as leadership so it's pragmatic if it would hurt the economy despite what the huddled masses think.

That's pretty much what I was saying (without actually saying it of course)

Chief Roundup
07-15-2011, 03:32 PM
Take from everyone.



I agree. F the wars and F the foreign aid.

Take from everyone yes but there are people that can afford to have less than others depending on what they already have.
Example people that live on subsidized housing and so on. I know a wealthy man that has several housing complexes that are homes to over 500 people on fixed incomes. If they don't get thier checks he won't get his money either. Most if not all of those places the electric, gas, water, is all included in the rent from those units. Without those monies he will be out over 150k in utilities alone.
He is willing to do his part as well but he cannot take hits like this or all of those people will be on the street.

Chief Roundup
07-15-2011, 03:33 PM
No, you don't know that because it is not true.

I guess we will see.

KC Dan
07-15-2011, 03:34 PM
A proposal no. I do know that there may not be any money to pay those people in August.Then, you are listening to whack-jobs that are trying to scare people into getting the debt ceiling raised with no preconditions crowd.
They just want to keep spending and spending and spending and spending and spending and spending and spending and spending and spending and spending and spending and spending AND taxing and taxing and taxing and taxing and taxing and taxing and taxing and taxing and taxing and taxing and taxing and taxing us into oblivion. It really is that simple

mlyonsd
07-15-2011, 03:40 PM
Then, you are listening to whack-jobs that are trying to scare people into getting the debt ceiling raised with no preconditions crowd.
They just want to keep spending and spending and spending and spending and spending and spending and spending and spending and spending and spending and spending and spending AND taxing and taxing and taxing and taxing and taxing and taxing and taxing and taxing and taxing and taxing and taxing and taxing us into oblivion. It really is that simple

This. And, Chief Roundup, it's important to understand why they do this. It's to keep an entire class of people voting for them. It has nothing to do with what is right or best for the country. It all has to do with keeping their party in power by making that certain class dependent.

Baby Lee
07-15-2011, 03:44 PM
would going back to the pre-bush tax rates be acceptable?

as i recall, everyone got some tax cut then, so bringing them back to that level would "increase" taxes for most everyone and make a substantial dent in the deficit...

Thing is, the reality of tax increases is immediate and concrete, the reality of spending reductions is analyzed a decade from now and disputed even then.

KC Dan
07-15-2011, 03:44 PM
Chief R -

2006 U.S. Revenues = $2.407 Trillion
2006 U.S. Spending = $2.700 Trillion

$300 billion deficit


2010 U.S. Revenues = $2.162 Trillion
2010 U.S. Spending = $3.456 Trillion

$1.294 Trillion deficit

While tax revenues have dipped a bit ($250 Billion) in 2010 from 2006 levels, spending has EXPLODED since the democrats took control over Congress, then the Presidency and now the Republican House is trying to drop spending. More taxation is not what is needed, spending restraint is.

Chiefshrink
07-15-2011, 03:46 PM
Can't get any better than "O'Marxist"!!:clap::) And the sad part is there are few on this board that will try to defend this statement. :rolleyes:

ROYC75
07-15-2011, 03:48 PM
Chief R -

2006 U.S. Revenues = $2.407 Trillion
2006 U.S. Spending = $2.700 Trillion

$300 billion deficit


2010 U.S. Revenues = $2.162 Trillion
2010 U.S. Spending = $3.456 Trillion

$1.294 Trillion deficit

While tax revenues have dipped a bit ($250 Billion) in 2010 from 2006 levels, spending has EXPLODED since the democrats took control over Congress, then the Presidency and now the Republican House is trying to drop spending. More taxation is not what is needed, spending restraint is.

No need to give them the facts, their minds are already made up that these #'s are just a sack of lies.

KC Dan
07-15-2011, 03:51 PM
No need to give them the facts, their minds are already made up that these #'s are just a sack of lies.I guess you could be right since the facts came from the same gov't feeding them those lies....

Chiefshrink
07-15-2011, 03:52 PM
Thing is, the reality of tax increases is immediate and concrete, the reality of spending reductions is analyzed a decade from now and disputed even then.


:hmmm: In Dec of 2010 Obama said 'tax increases' would be bad for the economy thus extending the Bush tax cuts. What's changed in the economy the last 6mos that justifies tax increases that would not be bad for the economy NOW ? Especially when the Repubs have proven over and over again that we DO have the $$ to pay our debt and avoid default without raising taxes.

What's changed ?

Chief Roundup
07-15-2011, 03:53 PM
Chief R -

2006 U.S. Revenues = $2.407 Trillion
2006 U.S. Spending = $2.700 Trillion

$300 billion deficit


2010 U.S. Revenues = $2.162 Trillion
2010 U.S. Spending = $3.456 Trillion

$1.294 Trillion deficit

While tax revenues have dipped a bit ($250 Billion) in 2010 from 2006 levels, spending has EXPLODED since the democrats took control over Congress, then the Presidency and now the Republican House is trying to drop spending. More taxation is not what is needed, spending restraint is.

I know we need to curb spending! I am all for it!
But if they cut SS, Disability, Medicare and Medicaid then my dad and others in his situation won't be able to survive and or get medical attention that they need.

Garcia Bronco
07-15-2011, 03:54 PM
I know we need to curb spending! I am all for it!
But if they cut SS, Disability, Medicare and Medicaid then my dad and others in his situation won't be able to survive and or get medical attention that they need.

All those things are the largest sinkhole in our budget...defense spending is number 2....we can cut that as well.

Hydrae
07-15-2011, 03:59 PM
I earned that money. But the county and those who came before me deserve a fair share. If it wasn't for them I would not be in a position to earn that money.
There are people that can't earn for themselves. I am willing to do my part.
There is a difference between what a person needs and what a person wants.

As am I. I just do not remember where it is the governments place to make me support my neighbor. I should be doing that because it is right for me, not because some bureaucrat in DC thinks he has a right to redistribute my money to my neighbor.

Detoxing
07-15-2011, 04:00 PM
Detoxing up in this bioth

Chief Roundup
07-15-2011, 04:02 PM
All those things are the largest sinkhole in our budget...defense spending is number 2....we can cut that as well.

Hmmm well I know that my parents, myself, my wife and so on have all paid into SS. I know I have been paying since i started working at 12 years old. If they want to cut me off ok. But they should take care of my parents. And stop taking those taxes out of my families paychecks. If they do that it will also cut into the tax revenues so those tax dollars will have to recouped from somewhere else.

Chiefshrink
07-15-2011, 04:03 PM
Bottom line: Obama is picking this fight because he NEEDS the Repubs to stand firm in hopes the Govt shutdown and defaulting will take place in hopes to pull off the same 'bait and switch" Clinton did to the Repubs in 95 by "Alinskyizing" the blame on the Repubs. Obama wants to use this narrative in his re-election campaign that he did alllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll he could to work a deal but the those "nasty white bigoted Christian Tea Party Repubs" have done this (economic turmoil) to the American People:rolleyes: When in reality "O" has nothing else because he sure can't run on his economic policy numbers. What's he going to say? "Well, I inherited a recession only to worsen it or give you another on top of it?

IMO, if the Repubs stay firm and don't deal at all the "Alinskyizing" won't be near as effective because "times are a changin" and these times are not 1995 and the country is awake alive and well but the Repubs have to trust "We The People" to see this "bait and switch Marxist BS" going on:thumb:

BucEyedPea
07-15-2011, 04:04 PM
Thing is, the reality of tax increases is immediate and concrete, the reality of spending reductions is analyzed a decade from now and disputed even then.

The spending never come though for the promised exchanges earlier.

wazu
07-15-2011, 04:04 PM
Weird that all the articles about Obama saying this seem to leave out the actual quote that includes him saying it.

Baby Lee
07-15-2011, 04:09 PM
Weird that all the articles about Obama saying this seem to leave out the actual quote that includes him saying it.

Stay down bitch.

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9SzimHhzl9w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

loochy
07-15-2011, 04:10 PM
Stay down bitch.

pwnt

vailpass
07-15-2011, 04:10 PM
God what a failure. You can't even get obama supporters to step up and say they believe he has done a good job as President. Instead you'll get the "he isn't Bush" cop out or the "so what he's going to get re-elected" crap.
Very sad for our country; obama is a shit stain on the rug of the Oval Office.

wazu
07-15-2011, 04:11 PM
Stay down bitch.

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9SzimHhzl9w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Not watching videos. Just find it odd that every text article about this crazy proclamation would omit the actual quote they are reporting on.

vailpass
07-15-2011, 04:12 PM
Not watching videos. Just find it odd that every text article about this crazy proclamation would omit the actual quote they are reporting on.

I don't blame you for not watching. I can't stand to hear the mumbly mouthed son of a bitch talk either. But be assured, obama said exactly what the OP says he did.

Taco John
07-15-2011, 04:18 PM
http://i.imgur.com/zEgXY.png

Predarat
07-15-2011, 04:21 PM
80 % what a damn jackass. Someone needs to organize a mass amount of Repubs and Indys registering as Dems in the primary to knock this bozo out in the pramary elections.

Cave Johnson
07-15-2011, 04:27 PM
If Rasmussen said it, take it to the bank.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/

Saul Good
07-15-2011, 04:28 PM
Nobody wants to pay higher taxes especially the rich which is where the increase needs to come from.
I know I would rather see my taxes go up than see members of my family lose thier SS and or disability.

How generous of you. I'd be willing to pay $5,000 more in taxes is it meant that my family brought in $50,000 out of those same coffers.

mikey23545
07-15-2011, 04:47 PM
I am a 40 year old with 4 children. We are raising our first grandchild.
Yes I am enrolled in college. Since I am no longer able to do my previous career.

I hope your college education kicks in soon, because you are one stupid motherfucker.

ROYC75
07-15-2011, 05:12 PM
I hope your college education kicks in soon, because you are one stupid mother****er.

A little bit raw , aren't we ? Why the attack on him ?

petegz28
07-15-2011, 06:20 PM
you mean to see people who say they NEED more of my money really just WANT more of my money, right?

Chief Roundup
07-15-2011, 07:04 PM
I hope your college education kicks in soon, because you are one stupid mother****er.

Well to bad you feel that way since it was your momma that I was fucking.

petegz28
07-15-2011, 07:07 PM
Well to bad you feel that way since it was your momma that I was ****ing.

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/GovvXLDqY-8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Chief Roundup
07-15-2011, 08:10 PM
http://i1122.photobucket.com/albums/l536/ChiefRoundup/EducatedvsElection.png

Funny how the most highly educated voted democrat....things that make you go Hmmmmmm



http://i1122.photobucket.com/albums/l536/ChiefRoundup/qqxsgFiscalConservative.jpg

Radar Chief
07-15-2011, 08:42 PM
http://i1122.photobucket.com/albums/l536/ChiefRoundup/EducatedvsElection.png

Funny how the most highly educated voted democrat....things that make you go Hmmmmmm



http://i1122.photobucket.com/albums/l536/ChiefRoundup/qqxsgFiscalConservative.jpg

McCain? Seriously?
Update your rhetoric. Aside from the fact that the "Clinton surplus" never existed, where's the next slide of the Teleprompter outspending all four prior administrations combined?

RINGLEADER
07-15-2011, 09:07 PM
http://i1122.photobucket.com/albums/l536/ChiefRoundup/EducatedvsElection.png

Funny how the most highly educated voted democrat....things that make you go Hmmmmmm

http://i1122.photobucket.com/albums/l536/ChiefRoundup/qqxsgFiscalConservative.jpg

So how much was the debt when Clinton arrived and how much was it when he left (when he was supposedly "leaving" a surplus)?

Also, no matter how much people like to pull out Clinton's imaginary surplus, it doesn't change the fact that Obama will have equaled -- in just his first term -- the entire deficits of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush COMBINED.

He goes out and raises the level of spending to impossible levels then expects to get kudos for "freezing spending" at those same insane levels. The media lap it up and the public doesn't seem to know any better.

Radar Chief
07-15-2011, 09:23 PM
If Rasmussen said it, take it to the bank.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/

So the best you've got is proclaiming Rasmussen bias?
OK, fine, whatever, but does no one actually care to even venture a guess as to WTF Obama comes up with this 80% number?

ROYC75
07-15-2011, 09:51 PM
So the best you've got is proclaiming Rasmussen bias?
OK, fine, whatever, but does no one actually care to even venture a guess as to WTF Obama comes up with this 80% number?

no, because it fits into there reason of thinking.

Truth be known, the other polls must have been in heavy democratic areas.

HonestChieffan
07-15-2011, 09:57 PM
40% want cuts, 40% want tax increases=80% want tax increases and cuts

Obama math

Guru
07-15-2011, 11:08 PM
Funny, Obama's deficit isn't in that picture.

Guru
07-15-2011, 11:12 PM
40% want cuts, 40% want tax increases=80% want tax increases and cuts

Obama mathWasn't the poll that popped up the other day that combined them only came to 69%. And half of that was against tax increases.

HonestChieffan
07-15-2011, 11:21 PM
Wasn't the poll that popped up the other day that combined them only came to 69%. And half of that was against tax increases.

The pollsters did not ask Obama.

Guru
07-15-2011, 11:24 PM
Also, in that college map, most of those students will move to the conservative states after they start a family. :)

mlyonsd
07-15-2011, 11:26 PM
Was the 80% number ever substantiated? I haven't seen it.

HonestChieffan
07-15-2011, 11:31 PM
Was the 80% number ever substantiated? I haven't seen it.

Editorial: No, Americans Don't Want Higher Taxes

Posted 06:57 PM ET
Budget: Four of five Americans are "sold" on higher taxes to solve the deficit impasse, according to President Obama. Either he's deceiving himself or he completely misunderstands how the public really feels.

The president on Thursday cited a recent Gallup poll that purportedly shows, in his words, "80% want higher taxes" as part of a deal to slash the deficit. "The American people are sold," he said. "The problem is members of Congress are dug in ideologically."

In fact, a quick look at the polling data referenced by the president shows this isn't true. Not even close.

Gallup itself breaks it out: Those who say they want the deficit reduced "only/mostly with spending cuts" total 50% of those polled. Those who say they'd like it done "only/mostly with tax increases" total 11%. That's not 80%.

Americans aren't fools. Democrats just think they are. Whether its a $4 trillion "grand bargain" or a smaller $2.4 trillion cut in the expected $10 trillion in deficits over the next decade, if tax hikes are part of the deal it will sink the economy. Tax hikes are a nonstarter.

Americans see the explosion of $1 trillion-plus deficits stretching for decades to come, $107 trillion in unpaid bills for entitlements and a failed two-year Keynesian experiment that has pushed up federal spending by 25%. They know taxes didn't do this — spending did.

That's why Republicans should ignore Obama's demand for tax hikes. In our own IBD/TIPP Poll, 60% of Americans said they'd be "less likely" to vote for someone who supports increasing the debt ceiling without "major spending cuts." Heck, 58% said they either "somewhat" or "strongly" oppose raising the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling at all.

In our June poll, 74% of Americans opposed tax hikes as a way of getting out of our economic mess, while 80% also opposed more government spending.

Subscribe to the IBD Editorials Podcast
Clearly, Americans want spending cuts, not tax hikes. Other polls confirm this. A new Rasmussen poll shows 55% oppose higher taxes, even as part of a deal with Democrats to raise the debt ceiling.

With tepid 1.9% GDP growth, 9.2% unemployment, rising core inflation, a slumping dollar, a weakening manufacturing base, declining consumer confidence and a frightened small-business sector, no responsible politician would seek tax hikes topping $1 trillion. But that's just what Obama and the Democrats did.

Obama says the GOP plan to cut the deficit with spending cuts — not tax hikes — "doesn't seem serious to me." Well, he'll see how serious it is this week, after the GOP puts forward what it calls "cut, cap and balance."

That is, "cut" $100 billion from the budget now, "cap" spending at 18.5% of GDP (vs. the current 25%) and pass a balanced-budget amendment. This would require serious cuts and put us back on a sound fiscal footing.

Obama & Co. had total control for two years during which they could have passed their own budget, with tax hikes. They didn't. Now they want the GOP to do their dirty work. Republicans should just say no.

HonestChieffan
07-15-2011, 11:34 PM
http://www.gallup.com/poll/148472/Deficit-Americans-Prefer-Spending-Cuts-Open-Tax-Hikes.aspx

Guru
07-15-2011, 11:36 PM
God I hate politicians.

Mr. Kotter
07-15-2011, 11:46 PM
Tea-baggers cherry-pick polls....keep dreamin' douche-bags.

MOST of Americans realize the "free ride" for both, the low-income working poor...but MORE IMPORTANTLY, the privileged elite, needs to be over. Sorry; it's done, if real Americans have their say.

If the lunatic fringe, is left to, well, their lunatic positions; we'll continue down this silly road of dissonance, demagoguery, and deception. Of course, THAT would suit the lunatic fringe (and especially tea-bagging types) just fine and dandy.

Just sayin'...

dirk digler
07-16-2011, 12:31 AM
Was the 80% number ever substantiated? I haven't seen it.

I would assume it is the Gallup poll and it is really how you interpret the data. 20% want the deficit cut by just spending cuts the other % want some sort of mixture or just tax increases. I assume he just took the 20% out and said 80% in actuality it was 73%.

And IIRC there has been no proposal to raise tax rates from Obama. All he is proposing is to close tax loopholes but to stupid people they think that is raising taxes.

CaliforniaChief
07-16-2011, 12:37 AM
11% of those who live in the 50 States want tax hikes.

However, in the additional 7 States of Obama, nearly 100% of them want tax hikes.

Hence 80%.

Unless he counts all the votes in Chicago's finest places of eternal rest. They believe in tax hikes too.

headsnap
07-16-2011, 12:45 AM
And IIRC there has been no proposal to raise tax rates from Obama

That would be correct... He hasn't proposed jack shyte!!!!

RINGLEADER
07-16-2011, 02:12 AM
I would assume it is the Gallup poll and it is really how you interpret the data. 20% want the deficit cut by just spending cuts the other % want some sort of mixture or just tax increases. I assume he just took the 20% out and said 80% in actuality it was 73%.

And IIRC there has been no proposal to raise tax rates from Obama. All he is proposing is to close tax loopholes but to stupid people they think that is raising taxes.

Well then I guess 80% of Americans want more taxes.

Just like Obama is under 40% job approval in the 46 states that aren't California, Illinois, New York, and Massachusetts...

Bob Dole
07-16-2011, 06:25 AM
Bob Dole takes home less in real dollars now than he did 7 years ago...why not jump in and fuck him just a little harder so lazy pieces of shit can have free cell phones, ribeye steaks and housing.

mikey23545
07-16-2011, 06:41 AM
Bob Dole takes home less in real dollars now than he did 7 years ago...why not jump in and **** him just a little harder so lazy pieces of shit can have free cell phones, ribeye steaks and housing.

Kotter already has all those.

Just sayin'...

Chiefshrink
07-16-2011, 08:34 AM
Tea-baggers cherry-pick polls....keep dreamin' douche-bags.

Look in the mirror:rolleyes:

Mr. Kotter
07-16-2011, 08:55 AM
Bob Dole takes home less in real dollars now than he did 7 years ago...why not jump in and **** him just a little harder so lazy pieces of shit can have free cell phones, ribeye steaks and housing.

You are right to be outraged by lazy po' folks who are real parasites....I'm just surprised a man of your stature isn't MORE outraged by the blood-sucking special interest types and privileged elite who keep draining government coffers with their tax "incentives," loopholes, and corporate welfare bullshit--so they can keep their season tickets to three sports, their third and fourth vacation homes, and continue to send Buffy and Biff to schools that cost $50K per year to attend. Just sayin'.

Chiefshrink
07-16-2011, 08:59 AM
You are right to be outraged by lazy po' folks who are real parasites....I'm just surprised a man of your stature isn't MORE outraged by the blood-sucking special interest types and privileged elite who keep draining government coffers with their tax "incentives," loopholes, and corporate welfare bullshit--so they can keep their season tickets to three sports, their third and fourth vacation homes, and continue to send Buffy and Biff to schools that cost $50K per year to attend. Just sayin'.

Are sure you are not Saul Alinsky's nephew?:shrug:

Mr. Kotter
07-16-2011, 09:01 AM
Are sure you are not Saul Alinsky's nephew?:shrug:

Nope, but you seem to be Rupert Murdoch and Sarah Palin's secret love child. Just sayin'.

Chiefshrink
07-16-2011, 09:11 AM
Nope, but you seem to be Rupert Murdoch and Sarah Palin's secret love child. Just sayin'.

:clap: Good one!

HonestChieffan
07-16-2011, 09:57 AM
Its genetic his inbred hatred of the ones who succeed. Ignore they pay it all now and ignore the 50% who are like a parasite draining the host.



Weekly Address: “The truth is, you can’t solve our deficit without cutting spending. But you also can’t solve it without asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share”


This is rich:

"The truth is, you can’t solve our deficit without cutting spending. But you also can’t solve it without asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share — or without taking on loopholes that give special interests and big corporations tax breaks that middle-class Americans don’t get"

50 Freaking % pay zero you jackasss...thats about a hell of a tax break. And a ton get money back.....that they never paid in.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/16/weekly-address-unique-opportunity-secure-our-fiscal-future

dirk digler
07-16-2011, 10:30 AM
Its genetic his inbred hatred of the ones who succeed. Ignore they pay it all now and ignore the 50% who are like a parasite draining the host.



Weekly Address: “The truth is, you can’t solve our deficit without cutting spending. But you also can’t solve it without asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share”


This is rich:

"The truth is, you can’t solve our deficit without cutting spending. But you also can’t solve it without asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share — or without taking on loopholes that give special interests and big corporations tax breaks that middle-class Americans don’t get"

50 Freaking % pay zero you jackasss...thats about a hell of a tax break. And a ton get money back.....that they never paid in.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/16/weekly-address-unique-opportunity-secure-our-fiscal-future

I agree with what he is saying, Bill O'Reilly agress that we need to close loophoes, Mark Cuban said the same thing last night.

The deal he is offering is 83% in spending cuts 17% in raising revenue via closing loopholes. This is a no-brainer except for people without a brain, ie Republicans and tea baggers.

BucEyedPea
07-16-2011, 10:34 AM
Closing loopholes is just a tax increase without calling it one.

The No Brainer is to: lower the debt ceiling, cut govt employee pay, sell off govt resources like buildings, stop bailing out foreign banks/countries, stop the wars ( which are NOT making us safer); cut regulations to help the economy grow.

Radar Chief
07-16-2011, 10:34 AM
Tea-baggers cherry-pick polls....keep dreamin' douche-bags.

MOST of Americans realize the "free ride" for both, the low-income working poor...but MORE IMPORTANTLY, the privileged elite, needs to be over. Sorry; it's done, if real Americans have their say.

If the lunatic fringe, is left to, well, their lunatic positions; we'll continue down this silly road of dissonance, demagoguery, and deception. Of course, THAT would suit the lunatic fringe (and especially tea-bagging types) just fine and dandy.

Just sayin'...

"Just sayin" what? The only discernible point I could make of that psycho babble is you have something for getting tea-bagged. NTTIAWWT.

HonestChieffan
07-16-2011, 10:35 AM
I think so to. But Id love to see what you call a loophole, the specifics not the usual rant about tax breaks for whomever, and some data to support the revenue value the loophole you choose to close will create.

Bottom line...loopholes are a great thing to mention when you dont know jack shit what they are or how they work. Thats the rhetorical you, not you in particular.

BucEyedPea
07-16-2011, 10:36 AM
Geezus, all Kotter has is calling out and insults with no proposals, ideas or substance.

Radar Chief
07-16-2011, 10:40 AM
I agree with what he is saying, Bill O'Reilly agress that we need to close loophoes, Mark Cuban said the same thing last night.

The deal he is offering is 83% in spending cuts 17% in raising revenue via closing loopholes. This is a no-brainer except for people without a brain, ie Republicans and tea baggers.

It absolutely amazes me that anyone with a functioning brain could actually think that what this government needs is more of what its proven it can't handle, i.e. our tax dollars.

HonestChieffan
07-16-2011, 10:41 AM
Geezus, all Kotter has is calling out and insults with no proposals, ideas or substance.


I think its his time of the month so don't bother him

dirk digler
07-16-2011, 10:42 AM
Closing loopholes is just a tax increase without calling it one.

The No Brainer is to: lower the debt ceiling, cut govt employee pay, sell off govt resources like buildings, stop bailing out foreign banks/countries, stop the wars ( which are NOT making us safer); cut regulations to help the economy grow.

Thanks Grover

blaise
07-16-2011, 10:45 AM
I guess what he's saying is, "The debate over tax increases is over. Just like that. Politically, at least."

BucEyedPea
07-16-2011, 10:52 AM
Thanks Grover

You're welcome.

HonestChieffan
07-16-2011, 10:54 AM
From a Krathhammer article this week...

"If you collect that tax for the next 5,000 years — that is not a typo — it would equal the new debt Obama racked up last year alone. To put it another way, if we had levied this tax at the time of John the Baptist and collected it every year since — first in shekels, then in dollars — we would have 500 years to go before we could offset half of the debt added by Obama last year alone.

Obama's other favorite debt-reduction refrain is canceling an oil-company tax break. Well, if you collect that oil tax and the corporate jet tax for the next 50 years — you will not yet have offset Obama's deficit spending for February 2011."

dirk digler
07-16-2011, 10:58 AM
I think so to. But Id love to see what you call a loophole, the specifics not the usual rant about tax breaks for whomever, and some data to support the revenue value the loophole you choose to close will create.

Bottom line...loopholes are a great thing to mention when you dont know jack shit what they are or how they work. Thats the rhetorical you, not you in particular.

Loopholes that he is talking about are the ones for hedge fund managers that would net about $20 billion, oil and gas company subsidies net about $40 billion, removing the ability for corporations to use LIFO estimated to be around $100 billion or so, and limit itemized deductions for the wealthy.

It is 17% of the proposal. It is a no brainer to do. We need to simplify our tax code and remove all of the loopholes and breaks and that from what I understand would actually raise more revenue.

dirk digler
07-16-2011, 11:02 AM
It absolutely amazes me that anyone with a functioning brain could actually think that what this government needs is more of what its proven it can't handle, i.e. our tax dollars.

What caused all of this is the financial\housing\jobs meltodwn where revenue dropped off a cliff and we had to spend trillions of dollars to save the economy.

So yes the government needs more revenue and needs to cut spending. If we can people back to work and stop paying them unemployment that would significantly help on the revenue side and the spending side.

Yet there hasn't been 1 jobs bill proposed by the new House this year.

HonestChieffan
07-16-2011, 11:07 AM
Deferred Taxes for Financial Firms on Certain Income Earned Overseas


5-yr Cost to Government: $29.9 billion
Who benefits: Any financial firm with foreign operations.
Because most financial firms conduct their foreign operations as branches rather than as subsidiaries, as most companies in other industries do, they do not benefit from the tax breaks afforded to foreign subsidiaries. To compensate, this loophole enables financial firms to treat income from their foreign branches as if they were subsidiaries, along with all of the attendant tax benefits.


So, If we did away with this deferral, would US firms be in a disadvantaged position and close overseas operations? I dont know what the impact is but it would seem there is some downside to these firms. Maybe not.

Maybe they would just restructure and Make foreign operations a stand alone. In that case as long as the income was kept out of the US, we collect zero. Dammit all.

HonestChieffan
07-16-2011, 11:07 AM
How about this one?

Graduated Corporate Income

5-yr Cost to Government: $16.4 billion
Who benefits: Individuals that own small corporations.
This policy places the first $50,000 of a corporation’s profit at a 15 percent tax rate, with higher profit levels garnering higher tax rates, until it tops out at 35 percent for taxable corporate income exceeding $335,000. The result is that an owner of a small corporation pays only 15 percent in taxes on the first $50,000 of profit, leaving more left over potentially for reinvestment and growth.



Would this loophole be closed in your world Dirk?

Mizzou_8541
07-16-2011, 11:17 AM
A proposal no. I do know that there may not be any money to pay those people in August.

ROFL

HonestChieffan
07-16-2011, 11:19 AM
Another loophole to consider.


Tax Free Muni and State Bonds. I wonder how many people have some of these in a 401K or other savings plans?


Exclusion of Interest on State and Local Bonds

Image: Screenshot
5-yr Cost to Government: $59.8 billion
Who benefits: High-income investors and corporations.
Companies (and individuals) do not pay federal income tax on interest from their investments in state and municipal bonds. What’s more, private companies can in some cases issue tax-free bonds of their own for projects that benefit the public, such as construction of an airport, stadium or hospital.

Radar Chief
07-16-2011, 11:21 AM
What caused all of this is the financial\housing\jobs meltodwn where revenue dropped off a cliff and we had to spend trillions of dollars to save the economy.

So yes the government needs more revenue and needs to cut spending. If we can people back to work and stop paying them unemployment that would significantly help on the revenue side and the spending side.

Yet there hasn't been 1 jobs bill proposed by the new House this year.

"What caused all of this" is the government overspending. Period.

Thats the dot at the end of a sentence that means nothing else follows!

This government already takes in a couple trillion each year and they can't handle that.

Baby Lee
07-16-2011, 11:22 AM
Closing loopholes is just a tax increase without calling it one.
But it's not a rate increase, it's a revenue increase by removing social engineering from the tax code.

Tax loopholes are things like;

"If you're a good boy and spend money in this manner, we won't tax that money."

or

"Aww, did you run your business poorly this year? Don't worry, if you profit next year, we'll let you recoup these losses by reducing that tax burden."

or

"So you like the tax rate over there better. We don't mind, park your income there and we'll ignore that you earned it here."

petegz28
07-16-2011, 11:27 AM
Another loophole to consider.


Tax Free Muni and State Bonds. I wonder how many people have some of these in a 401K or other savings plans?


Exclusion of Interest on State and Local Bonds

Image: Screenshot
5-yr Cost to Government: $59.8 billion
Who benefits: High-income investors and corporations.
Companies (and individuals) do not pay federal income tax on interest from their investments in state and municipal bonds. What’s more, private companies can in some cases issue tax-free bonds of their own for projects that benefit the public, such as construction of an airport, stadium or hospital.


First off if you have Muni's in a 401k you're an idiot and a 1/2.


Secondly I hold Muni's as an alternative to the piss-poor rates we get on savings accounts.

Thirdly you will reduce a huge incentive for people to invest in Muni's if you take away the tax treatment and thus states and municipalities will suffer.

dirk digler
07-16-2011, 11:28 AM
How about this one?

Graduated Corporate Income

5-yr Cost to Government: $16.4 billion
Who benefits: Individuals that own small corporations.
This policy places the first $50,000 of a corporation’s profit at a 15 percent tax rate, with higher profit levels garnering higher tax rates, until it tops out at 35 percent for taxable corporate income exceeding $335,000. The result is that an owner of a small corporation pays only 15 percent in taxes on the first $50,000 of profit, leaving more left over potentially for reinvestment and growth.



Would this loophole be closed in your world Dirk?

If we were to simplify the tax code then yes it would.

dirk digler
07-16-2011, 11:30 AM
"What caused all of this" is the government overspending. Period.





I don't believe the financial meltdown had anything to do with government spending. It had to with greedy corporations and no one watching them

petegz28
07-16-2011, 11:40 AM
I don't believe the financial meltdown had anything to do with government spending. It had to with greedy corporations and no one watching them

The financial meltdown was primarily caused by corrupt ratings agencies stamping certain securities with a AAA rating when they had no business doing so. When they went from A-F overnight the panic was sparked.

Additionally a lot of those securities were traded on "dark markets" which prohibited people from seeing the real goings on.

Finally, the Fed Reserve and Treasury aided the entire thing by printing and spending tax payer $'s to the same people who buy off the ratings agencies, the same people that traded on dark markets and gave a lot of them money in secret.

It's not so much the financial breakdown that would have occurred but the bullshit that came along after to bail out those who should have otherwsie been forced to deal with their own shortcomings that is causing a lot of pain right now.

The Fed is printing $'s like crazy not only to purchase our debt but to keep buying these toxic assets. The Ben Bernank swears these will be profitablye at some point in time so it's ok for us as the tax payer to hold them but not the people who bought them in the first place.

Certain players like Government Sachs fueled this bubble, saw that the bubble was about to burst, aided in the bursting and they had the Treasury and Fed bail them out..see AIG.

It's no secret anymore that places like Government Sachs were selling these securities on one hand and then betting against them on the other. When companies could not make good on the bets GS made they cried to Paulson claiming the world was going to end if they didn't get what was owed to them.

Mr. Kotter
07-16-2011, 11:44 AM
...
50 Freaking % pay zero...



That's the biggest lie of them all--unless you wish to parse, and play semantic games, by ONLY talking about the federal payroll tax. For the record, I would favor a minimum rate for EVERYONE; however, the amount raised would not make much headway toward solving the problems we are talking about today.

Most of those who don't pay a federal income tax pay a helluva lot in OTHER taxes--and in most cases, their TOTAL tax burden as a percentage of their incomes, is much higher than the tea bagging privileged elite who whine about having to contribute less, now, as a per cent of GDP than they have since the 1950s and 60s.

This nation's freedom, opportunities, and society allow the ubber wealthy to live lavish lifestyles, that in previous generations were available only to a tiny fraction of the population...and yet, today, the top 5% or so, seem to feel entitled to raping and pillaging the rest of society, and destroying the middle class--all so they can have even more. Unbelievable.

petegz28
07-16-2011, 11:47 AM
That's the biggest lie of them all--unless you wish to parse, and play semantic games, by ONLY talking about the federal payroll tax.

Most of those who don't pay a federal income tax pay a helluva lot in OTHER taxes--and in most cases, their TOTAL tax burden as a percentage of their incomes, is much higher than the tea bagging privileged elite who whine about having to contribute less, now, as a per cent of GDP than they have since the 1950s and 60s.

This nation's freedom, opportunities, and society allow the ubber wealthy to live lavish lifestyles, that in previous generations were available only to a tiny fraction of the population...and yet, today, the top 5% or so, seem to feel entitled to raping and pillaging the rest of society, and destroying the middle class--all so they can have even more. Unbelievable.

And you know what? Most of those who DO pay federal payroll tax also spend a helluva lot in OTHER taxes as well.

Seems to me this whole post is you are pissed because someone else might have more money than you. After all, you are entitled to your share of their money, right?

Mr. Kotter
07-16-2011, 11:48 AM
I don't believe the financial meltdown had anything to do with government spending. It had to with greedy corporations and no one watching them

Bingo. And it occurred with the complicity of politicians from both sides of the aisle.

petegz28
07-16-2011, 11:50 AM
Bingo. And it occurred with the complicity of politicians from both sides of the aisle.

The root of it was banks were giving out loans they never should have made in the first place. But they didn't care because they could wrap them up in a bundle, call them "securities" and sell them.

0% down?
Interst only loans?
No verification of incomes?


And they got a nice bailout for their efforts.

Mr. Kotter
07-16-2011, 11:53 AM
And you know what? Most of those who DO pay federal payroll tax also spend a helluva lot in OTHER taxes as well.

Seems to me this whole post is you are pissed because someone else might have more money than you. After all, you are entitled to your share of their money, right?

Pissed? Not at all. More power to them; God bless America and freedom to do what you want. Of course, they pay other taxes too; the point is as a PERCENTAGE of their income, their total tax burden is actually less than the working poor and lower middle classes. It's been that way since the 1990s too.

Their decreased contribution, as a percentage of the GDP, has been shifted a disproporionate share of TOTAL taxes to the working class and middle class. The right wants to always demagogue about "class warfare;" well, they know a helluva a lot about that....because they've been waging it for over 30 years now. And, unfortunately for the rest of us, they are very good at it.

dirk digler
07-16-2011, 11:54 AM
That's the biggest lie of them all--unless you wish to parse, and play semantic games, by ONLY talking about the federal payroll tax. For the record, I would favor a minimum rate for EVERYONE; however, the amount raised would not make much headway toward solving the problems we are talking about today.


First, Pete you could have saved yourself some time typing and just said I agree. :D

Second, Kotter one thing I don't understand is if you get a tax refund does that mean you are part of the 50%? If so count me in I guess even though they take out thousands of dollars out of my check every year in and heck I just claim the standard deduction.

petegz28
07-16-2011, 11:59 AM
Pissed? Not at all. More power to them; God bless America and freedom to do what you want. Of course, they pay other taxes too; the point is as a PERCENTAGE of their income, their total tax burden is actually less than the working poor and lower middle classes. It's been that way since the 1990s too.

Their decreased contribution, as a percentage of the GDP, has been shifted a disproporionate share of TOTAL taxes to the working class and middle class. The right wants to always demagogue about "class warfare;" well, they know a helluva a lot about that....because they've been waging it for over 30 years now. And, unfortunately for the rest of us, they are very good at it.

This is what I hate about this argument. On one hand people want to look at percentage and ignore the $ cost of that percentage.

You do realize that someone paying 10% of $1mil is still paying 10 times what someone at $100k is, right?

You talk about fairness yet you fail to see the forrest through the trees.

Mr. Kotter
07-16-2011, 12:01 PM
First, Pete you could have saved yourself some time typing and just said I agree. :D

Second, Kotter one thing I don't understand is if you get a tax refund does that mean you are part of the 50%? If so count me in I guess even though they take out thousands of dollars out of my check every year in and heck I just claim the standard deduction.

No. It depends on what you've paid in over the year, in federal taxes. If you make more than $20K (single) or $35-45K (couple, depending on particulars)....you very likely do pay at least some federal taxes; it's just that you paid in more over the year, taken from each check....than you owed at the end of the year. Hence, a refund of the overpayment.

The only folks who truly pay NO federal income tax, are those who don't make squat....and/or have dependents, deductions, or other circumstances (including lying about their incomes, unfortunately) that allow them to file with federal taxes due.

HonestChieffan
07-16-2011, 12:01 PM
First off if you have Muni's in a 401k you're an idiot and a 1/2.


Secondly I hold Muni's as an alternative to the piss-poor rates we get on savings accounts.

Thirdly you will reduce a huge incentive for people to invest in Muni's if you take away the tax treatment and thus states and municipalities will suffer.


As we age and as a portfolio gains in size and exposure, munis take on a role in any portfolio. So they do have a place.

You are correct. The easy "lets do away with loopholes" takes on a different tone when we look at the specifics. But for those who want to do away with them, they will then move to higher costs for municipalities, Hospitals, schools to fund needed activity and will increase local taxes.

HonestChieffan
07-16-2011, 12:02 PM
No. It depends on what you've paid in over the year, in federal taxes. If you make more than $20K (single) or $35-45K (couple, depending on particulars)....you very likely do pay at least some federal taxes; it's just that you paid in more over the year, take from each check....than you owed at the end of the year. Hence, a refund of the overpayment.

The only folks who truly pay NO federal income tax, are those who don't make squat....and/or have dependents, deductions, or other circumstances (including lying about their incomes, unfortunately) that allow them to file with federal taxes due.


You are either uninformed, ignorant of the facts, or don't care to know what you are talking about or all 3.

HonestChieffan
07-16-2011, 12:03 PM
If we were to simplify the tax code then yes it would.

So a small business would then pay the same as a huge multinational in your new simple code.

petegz28
07-16-2011, 12:04 PM
As we age and as a portfolio gains in size and exposure, munis take on a role in any portfolio. So they do have a place.

You are correct. The easy "lets do away with loopholes" takes on a different tone when we look at the specifics. But for those who want to do away with them, they will then move to higher costs for municipalities, Hospitals, schools to fund needed activity and will increase local taxes.

Muni's have 0 place in a 401k. You don't put tax-free investments into a tax-free investment. It is beyond stupid and you are costing yourself a shitload of money over the long run. Muni's belong in a taxable portfolio.

If everything in my 401k grows tax free then WTF would I buy a tax-free security to put into my tax-free 401k? You are costing yourself the difference between the taxable equivelant of a taxable bond vs the muni.

HonestChieffan
07-16-2011, 12:05 PM
Another big one.

Credit for Low-Income Housing Investments


5-yr Cost to Government: $34.5 billion
Who benefits: Real estate developers.
As you might expect, this one gives tax breaks to companies that develop low-income housing. It’s the rule that’s responsible for so many larger new developments setting aside 20 percent or 40 percent of their units for people whose income is well below the area’s median gross income.


Who sees this loophole as a bad deal?

dirk digler
07-16-2011, 12:06 PM
No. It depends on what you've paid in over the year, in federal taxes. If you make more than $20K (single) or $35-45K (couple, depending on particulars)....you very likely do pay at least some federal taxes; it's just that you paid in more over the year, taken from each check....than you owed at the end of the year. Hence, a refund of the overpayment.

The only folks who truly pay NO federal income tax, are those who don't make squat....and/or have dependents, deductions, or other circumstances (including lying about their incomes, unfortunately) that allow them to file with federal taxes due.

That is what I thought. Thanks

Mr. Kotter
07-16-2011, 12:06 PM
This is what I hate about this argument. On one hand people want to look at percentage and ignore the $ cost of that percentage.

You do realize that someone paying 10% of $1mil is still paying 10 times what someone at $100k is, right?

You talk about fairness yet you fail to see the forrest through the trees.

Fair is NOT equal. Two families with two kids, one making 40K, and the other making 400K should not be expected to pay the same rate. With wealth and success that this country affords, also comes increased responsibility, obligation, and dare I say....gratitude, for the circumstances that allows one that success. For the record, I'm not talking about anything ridiculous. However, the idea that a 2 or 3 % bump in taxes for the wealthy....is somehow punitive? Really??? Pleeeeaszzze, MFer.

Cry me a friggin' river... :rolleyes:

HonestChieffan
07-16-2011, 12:07 PM
Muni's have 0 place in a 401k. You don't put tax-free investments into a tax-free investment. It is beyond stupid and you are costing yourself a shitload of money over the long run. Muni's belong in a taxable portfolio.

If everything in my 401k grows tax free then WTF would I buy a tax-free security to put into my tax-free 401k? You are costing yourself the difference between the taxable equivelant of a taxable bond vs the muni.

Well Pete, thats why 401k's are self directed. I tend to have a different view as I no longer contribute to mine and I am managing it for my future. Once you retire and have a different objective the elements and how you invest change. I should say, your portfolio, not exclusive to 401K...you are correct if all you have is a 401.

Mr. Kotter
07-16-2011, 12:08 PM
You are either uninformed, ignorant of the facts, or don't care to know what you are talking about or all 3.

Do your homework, and you'd see that I'm right. It's just that FOX and RWNJ talk radio have so brainwashed clowns like you, and the tea bagging right, that you guys actually believe the fuggin' lies you are fed.

petegz28
07-16-2011, 12:10 PM
Fair is NOT equal. Two families with two kids, one making 40K, and the other making 400K should not be expected to pay the same rate. With wealth and success that this country affords, also comes increased responsibility, obligation, and dare I say....gratitude, for the circumstances that allows one that success. For the record, I'm not talking about anything ridiculous. However, the idea that a 2 or 3 % bump in taxes for the wealthy....is somehow punitive? Really. Pleeeeaszzze, MFer.

Cry me a friggin' river... :rolleyes:

Oh, so fair is not equal?? Are you fucking kidding me? Did you really just say that?

So equal is I pay more than you because I have the money to do so? That doesn't sound fair nor equal to me at all.


What you want is neither fair nor equal. You want one person to pay 10% the other to pay 20%. That is not fair nor equal. Nevermind that if both paid 10% the higher earner is still paying more which is still not fair nor equal.

dirk digler
07-16-2011, 12:10 PM
So a small business would then pay the same as a huge multinational in your new simple code.

I would support simplifying the tax code like the debt commission recommended which was to get rid of all individual and business loopholes and tax deductions along with lowering the corporate tax rate.

dirk digler
07-16-2011, 12:11 PM
You are either uninformed, ignorant of the facts, or don't care to know what you are talking about or all 3.

So you are saying I am part of the free-riding 50%?

petegz28
07-16-2011, 12:12 PM
Well Pete, thats why 401k's are self directed. I tend to have a different view as I no longer contribute to mine and I am managing it for my future. Once you retire and have a different objective the elements and how you invest change. I should say, your portfolio, not exclusive to 401K...you are correct if all you have is a 401.

What are you gaining by having a tax-free investment in your 401k that your aren't paying taxes on in the first place? You have totally, 100% negated the tax-free treatment of a Muni the second you put it into a 401k or IRA thus screwing yourself out of 3-4% extra you would otherwise get on a taxable bond. Since it is in a 401k you aren't paying taxes on the taxable bond so why would you settle for less money?

Edit: I think you are agreeing with me by your last statement.

HonestChieffan
07-16-2011, 12:14 PM
What are you gaining by having a tax-free investment in your 401k that your aren't paying taxes on in the first place? You have totally, 100% negated the tax-free treatment of a Muni the second you put it into a 401k or IRA thus screwing yourself out of 3-4% extra you would otherwise get on a taxable bond. Since it is in a 401k you aren't paying taxes on the taxable bond so why would you settle for less money?


I tried to correct myself...I should be refering to portfolio, not simply 401k. I thought I said that

HonestChieffan
07-16-2011, 12:16 PM
So you are saying I am part of the free-riding 50%?

No I replied to Kotter. You are not ignorant or uninformed and you do care.

Mr. Kotter
07-16-2011, 12:18 PM
Oh, so fair is not equal?? Are you ****ing kidding me? Did you really just say that?

So equal is I pay more than you because I have the money to do so? That doesn't sound fair nor equal to me at all.


What you want is neither fair nor equal. You want one person to pay 10% the other to pay 20%. That is not fair nor equal. Nevermind that if both paid 10% the higher earner is still paying more which is still not fair nor equal.

You plutocrats and aristocrats LOST the progressive tax debate about a 100 years ago. Yeah...you've been trying to steal it back ever since, but all Obama needs to do is remind the nation of why the progressive tax won then....and why the majority of Americans continue to support it. Tea baggers will fight the good fight, but will ultimately lose that debate--and decisively.

The best evidence of that will be that will be, despite circumstances that historically would mean a one-term presidency for Obama....he's likely to trounce whomever the Reps put up next year, because the Republicans are so tone deaf and out of touch with anyone but the tea baggers, FOX, and RWNJ talk radio .

Unless, of course, the Republicans shock me, (and piss off those folks, heh) by selecting someone who is actually electable--rather than an ideological zealot.

You heard it here first. Watch.

HonestChieffan
07-16-2011, 12:19 PM
I would support simplifying the tax code like the debt commission recommended which was to get rid of all individual and business loopholes and tax deductions along with lowering the corporate tax rate.

And would the small business incorporated pay the same as a multinational? That seems to be a rather easy question. Now we have a loophole that favors small business in the early stages of growth and income that goes away as income increases. The question is, since we have this desire to eliminate loopholes, would you tax all at the same level and if so would you raise the rate on the small ones or lower the rate on the top.


Lets stop dancing with the debt commission crap and deal with this loop hole and this specific.

dirk digler
07-16-2011, 12:21 PM
No I replied to Kotter. You are not ignorant or uninformed and you do care.

Ok I just thought you might be disagreeing with his take that people who get refunds like myself have overpaid.

Mr. Kotter
07-16-2011, 12:23 PM
Oh, so fair is not equal?? Are you ****ing kidding me? Did you really just say that?

So equal is I pay more than you because I have the money to do so? That doesn't sound fair nor equal to me at all.


What you want is neither fair nor equal. You want one person to pay 10% the other to pay 20%. That is not fair nor equal. Nevermind that if both paid 10% the higher earner is still paying more which is still not fair nor equal.

No, Mr. Hyperbole; I'm talking about the difference between a 25-34-36% federal tax progressive tax rate structure versus say a 25-35-38% structure. For the record, in case you didn't know....the 24-34-36 progressive rate has been around, more or less, since the 1980s, although W tweaked it to make it more favorable to the top end--which is part of the reason we are in the mess we are in.

petegz28
07-16-2011, 12:24 PM
You plutocrats and aristocrats LOST the progressive tax debate about a 100 years ago. Yeah...you've been trying to steal it back ever since, but all Obama needs to do is remind the nation of why the progressive tax won then....and why the majority of Americans continue to support it. Tea baggers will fight the good fight, but will ultimately lose that debate--and decisively.

The best evidence of that will be that will be, despite circumstances that historically would mean a one-term presidency for Obama....he's likely to trounce whomever the Reps put up next year, because the Republicans are so tone deaf and out of touch with anyone but the tea baggers, FOX, and RWNJ talk radio .

Unless, of course, the Republicans shock me, (and piss off those folks, heh) by selecting someone who is actually electable--rather than an ideological zealot.

You heard it here first. Watch.

So in summary, it's not fair that I make more money than you so I should have to pay more so you can have more of my money. Got it.

petegz28
07-16-2011, 12:25 PM
No, Mr. Hyperbole; I'm talking about the difference between a 25-34-36% federal tax progressive tax rate structure versus say a 25-35-38% structure. For the record, in case you didn't know....the 24-34-36 progressive rate has been around, more or less, since the 1980s, although W tweaked it to make it more favorable to the top end--which is part of the reason we are in the mess we are in.

How many people got knocked off the tax bill entirely under Bush? How many people enjoy a higher child deduciton because of Bush?

stevieray
07-16-2011, 12:26 PM
tea baggers eleventy billion

hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

/Kotter

dirk digler
07-16-2011, 12:28 PM
And would the small business incorporated pay the same as a multinational? That seems to be a rather easy question. Now we have a loophole that favors small business in the early stages of growth and income that goes away as income increases. The question is, since we have this desire to eliminate loopholes, would you tax all at the same level and if so would you raise the rate on the small ones or lower the rate on the top.


Lets stop dancing with the debt commission crap and deal with this loop hole and this specific.

I have already stated my position on this it would get removed. Lower the corporate tax to 25%

It seems this loophole is progressive and we just can't have that. ;)

BucEyedPea
07-16-2011, 12:28 PM
So in summary, it's not fair that I make more money than you so I should have to pay more so you can have more of my money. Got it.

You're saying that to a guy who called his own fellow party-members are being communists. :hmmm:

Mr. Kotter
07-16-2011, 12:31 PM
So in summary, it's not fair that I make more money than you so I should have to pay more so you can have more of my money. Got it.

If you don't feel fortunate enough, and do not realize that the greatness of this country has afforded you opportunities that you would not have most other places on the planet....and that we all owe this nation a great deal of gratitude, I don't know what to tell you.

For the record, I'm in the 34% bracket too. While I grumble at tax time, like everyone else....it has never, ever struck me as "unfair" that I have to pay a higher rate than someone else who makes considerably less, and in many cases is just scraping by.

dirk digler
07-16-2011, 12:34 PM
If you don't feel fortunate enough, and do not realize that the greatness of this country has afforded you opportunities that you would not have most other places on the planet....and that we all owe this nation a great deal of gratitude, I don't know what to tell you.

For the record, I'm in the 34% bracket too. While I grumble at tax time, like everyone else....it has never, ever struck me as "unfair" that I have to pay a higher rate than someone else who makes considerably less, and in many cases is just scraping by.

You overpaid, government tit-sucker douchebag /Cleveland Bronco :D

HonestChieffan
07-16-2011, 12:34 PM
I have already stated my position on this it would get removed. Lower the corporate tax to 25%

It seems this loophole is progressive and we just can't have that. ;)

So you support cutting tax rates?

Mr. Kotter
07-16-2011, 12:35 PM
tea baggers eleventy billion

hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

/Kotter

Eh, the biggest reason I like the term so much is that it seems to rile ya'all and ruffle your feathers. I enjoy seeing the dittoheads and other lunatic fringe types squirm. Heh.

It's nothing personal, though, Stevie; lighten up. :Poke:

Mr. Kotter
07-16-2011, 12:36 PM
You overpaid, government tit-sucker douchebag /Cleveland Bronco :D

Believe me, the income that gets me into the 34% bracket is NOT my salary. :thumb:

So you support cutting tax rates?

We've been doing that for 30 years....and it's part of why we are so screwed.

stevieray
07-16-2011, 12:36 PM
Eh, the biggest reason I like the term so much is that it seems to rile ya'all and ruffle your feathers. I enjoy seeing the dittoheads and other lunatic fringe types squirm. Heh.

It's nothing personal, though, Stevie; lighten up. :Poke:

personal? ha!

says more about you than anyone else.

'just sayin'

dirk digler
07-16-2011, 12:38 PM
So you support cutting tax rates?

Along with removing all loopholes, breaks and subsidies. Yes I do.

And if they don't remove those things then we need to keep the rates the same except for the top rate needs to be 40%

Mr. Kotter
07-16-2011, 12:39 PM
You're saying that to a guy who called his own fellow party-members are being communists. :hmmm:

Some Democrats are communistic. On the other hand, most tea baggers are plutocrats--even if they themselves are only self-delusional wannabe plutocrats.

Mr. Kotter
07-16-2011, 12:42 PM
personal? ha!

says more about you than anyone else.

'just sayin'

That I like to ruffle feathers, and rile folks in political discussions? Guilty, as charged.

Playing devil's advocate, stirring the pot, is much more interesting IMHO than regurgitating something I hear on FOX or from one of the RWNJ radio shows.

Eh, but to each his own. :shrug:

AndChiefs
07-16-2011, 12:47 PM
That I like to ruffle feathers, and rile folks in political discussions? Guilty, as charged.

Playing devil's advocate, stirring the pot, is much more interesting IMHO than regurgitating something I hear on FOX or from one of the RWNJ radio shows.

Eh, but to each his own. :shrug:

Insulting someone who has different ideas by calling them "teabaggers" is not playing devil's advocate or stirring the pot. It's hardening their positions against you and making them less likely to listen to, or even hear, a word you say.

You're shooting yourself in the foot and you don't even seem to realize it.

dirk digler
07-16-2011, 12:48 PM
personal? ha!

says more about you than anyone else.

'just sayin'

So Stevie where do you stand on this deficit\tax debate?

stevieray
07-16-2011, 12:48 PM
is much more interesting IMHO than regurgitating something I hear on FOX or from one of the RWNJ radio shows.


what's humorous is you thinking that regurgitating this makes it valid.

dems like to devalue people. they've been doing it pretty much throughout our history.

'just sayin'

dirk digler
07-16-2011, 12:54 PM
dems like to devalue people. they've been doing it pretty much throughout our history.

'just sayin'

And the right doesn't?

stevieray
07-16-2011, 01:00 PM
And the right doesn't?

but but...billy does it too!

stop wasting our time.

dirk digler
07-16-2011, 01:03 PM
but but...billy does it too!

stop wasting our time.

Is this a yes? I am not wearing my stevieray decoder ring today.

stevieray
07-16-2011, 01:04 PM
Is this a yes? I am not wearing my stevieray decoder ring today.

no, its you deflecting. again.

dirk digler
07-16-2011, 01:08 PM
no, its you deflecting. again.

You are the one deflecting or refusing to answer the question. I believe that both sides engage in this kind of behavior. Do you agree or not?

petegz28
07-16-2011, 01:21 PM
If you don't feel fortunate enough, and do not realize that the greatness of this country has afforded you opportunities that you would not have most other places on the planet....and that we all owe this nation a great deal of gratitude, I don't know what to tell you.

For the record, I'm in the 34% bracket too. While I grumble at tax time, like everyone else....it has never, ever struck me as "unfair" that I have to pay a higher rate than someone else who makes considerably less, and in many cases is just scraping by.

Ah, now we should pay more in taxes for the good of the country. I'll agree we do owe the nation a great deal of gratitude. What we shouldn't owe is the government a great deal of money.

petegz28
07-16-2011, 01:30 PM
Here is the problem with Kotter's whole argument.

You toss out a flat tax and he will say "that isn't fair"

On the otherhand when it comes to certain people paying more he will say "fair is not equal" meaing I guess, "life isn't fair"?

That's the entire problem...on one hand they want to play the life isn't fair card but on the other they want to say things have to be fair.

dirk digler
07-16-2011, 01:39 PM
I guess the question was to complicated for Stevie. Not surprising...

RINGLEADER
07-16-2011, 01:50 PM
Along with removing all loopholes, breaks and subsidies. Yes I do.

And if they don't remove those things then we need to keep the rates the same except for the top rate needs to be 40%


You can raise the top rate to 100% of all income. It won't fix the debt/deficit problem. Raising tax revenues has been achieved through tax increases and decreases, but if we follow your logic and raise the rates to 40% it will bring the deficit down about $60-$70 billion -- provided the extra tax doesn't drag the economy at all (which it likely would).

So instead of $1.5 trillion deficits under Obama we'd have $1.43 trillion deficits under Obama.

Good plan. We should do it!

RINGLEADER
07-16-2011, 01:51 PM
Some Democrats are communistic. On the other hand, most tea baggers are plutocrats--even if they themselves are only self-delusional wannabe plutocrats.

LOL.

I don't even think most "tea baggers" know what a plutocrat is...let alone have the income to be one... ;)

RINGLEADER
07-16-2011, 01:53 PM
Ah, now we should pay more in taxes for the good of the country. I'll agree we do owe the nation a great deal of gratitude. What we shouldn't owe is the government a great deal of money.

Or these politicians (regardless of party) anything...

stevieray
07-16-2011, 02:00 PM
I guess the question was to complicated for Stevie. Not surprising...


it's too, dirk. maybe that's "to complicated' for you.

I had to go pick up my daughter.

it would take an unparalleled monstrosity to catch up to what the left has done.

dirk digler
07-16-2011, 02:04 PM
You can raise the top rate to 100% of all income. It won't fix the debt/deficit problem. Raising tax revenues has been achieved through tax increases and decreases, but if we follow your logic and raise the rates to 40% it will bring the deficit down about $60-$70 billion -- provided the extra tax doesn't drag the economy at all (which it likely would).

So instead of $1.5 trillion deficits under Obama we'd have $1.43 trillion deficits under Obama.

Good plan. We should do it!

I am not talking about this as a plan to fix the deficit.

dirk digler
07-16-2011, 02:09 PM
it's too, dirk. maybe that's "to complicated' for you.

I had to go pick up my daughter.

it would take an unparalleled monstrosity to catch up to what the left has done.


Right it is all the left's fault. :rolleyes:

I just don't get why you can't ever answer a direct question. You want to sit on the sidelines sniping at people and never want to put yourself on the record. What are you afraid of?

stevieray
07-16-2011, 02:12 PM
Right it is all the left's fault. :rolleyes:

I just don't get why you can't ever answer a direct question. You want to sit on the sidelines sniping at people and never want to put yourself on the record. What are you afraid of?


never said that...that's you putting words in my mouth.

..and I did answer your question, but you've switched to me. 'not surprising'

Baby Lee
07-16-2011, 02:16 PM
That I like to ruffle feathers, and rile folks in political discussions? Guilty, as charged.

Playing devil's advocate, stirring the pot, is much more interesting IMHO than regurgitating something I hear on FOX or from one of the RWNJ radio shows.

Eh, but to each his own. :shrug:

Problem being;

Devil's advocate: "your argument about xxx fails to give appropriate consideration to factors, yyy and zzz, and I submit that said failure is a fatal shortcoming for your thesis."

NOT Devil's advocate: "if the tea bagging wingtards would pull their heads out of their asses for a second, they might realize what us informed people plainly see."

An advocate seeks to persuade, and a mere asshole seeks to inflame.

dirk digler
07-16-2011, 02:21 PM
never said that...that's you putting words in my mouth.

..and I did answer your question, but you've switched to me. 'not surprising'

You didn't answer anything:

Question: So Stevie where do you stand on this deficit\tax debate?
Answer: Crickets

Question: I believe that both sides engage in this kind of behavior. Do you agree or not?
Answer: Crickets

So here is another question:

Question: You believe that "it would take an unparalleled monstrosity to catch up to what the left has done." So believe the right is an innocent bystander and has played no part in the decline\deficits of this country?

Quickie
07-16-2011, 02:31 PM
Problem being;

Devil's advocate: "your argument about xxx fails to give appropriate consideration to factors, yyy and zzz, and I submit that said failure is a fatal shortcoming for your thesis."

NOT Devil's advocate: "if the tea bagging wingtards would pull their heads out of their asses for a second, they might realize what us informed people plainly see."

An advocate seeks to persuade, and a mere asshole seeks to inflame.

:clap:

HonestChieffan
07-16-2011, 02:34 PM
Problem being;

Devil's advocate: "your argument about xxx fails to give appropriate consideration to factors, yyy and zzz, and I submit that said failure is a fatal shortcoming for your thesis."

NOT Devil's advocate: "if the tea bagging wingtards would pull their heads out of their asses for a second, they might realize what us informed people plainly see."

An advocate seeks to persuade, and a mere asshole seeks to inflame.

Mr Kotter certainly has elevated himself beyond "mere asshole"

RINGLEADER
07-16-2011, 04:02 PM
I am not talking about this as a plan to fix the deficit.

Is it a plan to generate economic growth?

Not sure I follow what your point is...

Mr. Kotter
07-16-2011, 05:21 PM
Problem being;

Devil's advocate: "your argument about xxx fails to give appropriate consideration to factors, yyy and zzz, and I submit that said failure is a fatal shortcoming for your thesis."

NOT Devil's advocate: "if the tea bagging wingtards would pull their heads out of their asses for a second, they might realize what us informed people plainly see."

An advocate seeks to persuade, and a mere asshole seeks to inflame.

BL...this is the internet. Logic and rational debate rarely move people. Hence, I gave up trying a long time ago. IMO "inflaming" the debate can, at least, be entertaining. Talk radio and FOX fans know the truth of that very well, heh.

Mr Kotter certainly has elevated himself beyond "mere asshole"

Coming from you, I consider that a compliment. :toast:

Baby Lee
07-16-2011, 05:52 PM
BL...this is the internet. Logic and rational debate rarely move people. Hence, I gave up trying a long time ago. IMO "inflaming" the debate can, at least, be entertaining. Talk radio and FOX fans know the truth of that very well, heh.



Coming from you, I consider that a compliment. :toast:

You never 'gave up trying,' you were never capable.

Your assertion is analogous to saying 'it's the 21st century, no one's good at sports anymore. I gave up trying a long time ago. Running out onto the field every couple of innings, or once a quarter, with my micropenis exposed can, at least, be entertaining.'

For well over a year, you've added NOTHING more than 'those guys are assholes, but those guys are REALLY assholes, but my friends and me, we're not assholes, we're reasonable and informed.'

You can't even be bothered to detail WTF you're even referring to, outside of 'there's these assholes and those assholes, and then there's cool people like me.'

Completely useless, more useless than a spambot for awesomedesignersunglasses.com. Day may come I'm in the market for sunglasses, no one yearns to join Camp Kotter, even if they had any idea what it entailed.

Mr. Kotter
07-16-2011, 06:10 PM
Different strokes for different folks. For me this joint is an outlet, to vent and seek entertainment. For you, I guess, it's far more serious business. Whatever floats your boat, Vern.

:shrug:

KC native
07-16-2011, 06:28 PM
:clap:

Is shitty already trying to sneak back in?

Baby Lee
07-16-2011, 06:54 PM
Different strokes for different folks. For me this joint is an outlet, to vent and seek entertainment. For you, I guess, it's far more serious business. Whatever floats your boat, Vern.

:shrug:

You heard it here from the horse's mouth, nothing Kotter posts merits an iota of thoughtful consideration [doubt anyone affords it anymore anyway]. It's just the maturbatory screechings of an attention monkey, bereft of coherence or cogence.

Listen, I feel bad for you that every time you attempted reason and logic on this board, you were universally pwnt as an idiot. But just because you can't do it, doesn't mean it's impossible, perhaps just impossible for you. And just because some of us are able to debate and analyze contemporary events doesn't make us officious wonks, just regular folks endowed with the capacity for persuasive and productive thought.

Mr. Kotter
07-16-2011, 07:14 PM
You heard it here from the horse's mouth, nothing Kotter posts merits an iota of thoughtful consideration [doubt anyone affords it anymore anyway]. It's just the maturbatory screechings of an attention monkey, bereft of coherence or cogence.

Listen, I feel bad for you that every time you attempted reason and logic on this board, you were universally pwnt as an idiot. But just because you can't do it, doesn't mean it's impossible, perhaps just impossible for you. And just because some of us are able to debate and analyze contemporary events doesn't make us officious wonks, just regular folks endowed with the capacity for persuasive and productive thought.

:spock:

LMAO

Holy crap! See, I love this joint---see what I mean, entertainment....mother of Jesus, that's a classic rant. Almost worthy of a serious response, but....nah. Nice try though.

Crack another bottle of scotch, bra. You really need to get over that rejection thing, though. Just sayin'

:toast:

Brock
07-16-2011, 07:20 PM
You heard it here from the horse's mouth, nothing Kotter posts merits an iota of thoughtful consideration [doubt anyone affords it anymore anyway]. It's just the maturbatory screechings of an attention monkey, bereft of coherence or cogence.

That was obvious years ago.

Shaid
07-16-2011, 07:38 PM
I would be open to tax increases, but not until we see some meaningful spending cuts. Until then they can go **** themselves

Yep, we need a bit of both.

Brock
07-16-2011, 07:39 PM
Yep, we need a bit of both.

We need a shitload more of one than of the other.

Baby Lee
07-16-2011, 07:52 PM
Baba Booie!! Baba Booie!! Howard Stern's PENIS!!!
Still funny the 5000th time. :clap:

BTW, rant is a single syllable word of exceedlingly common usage, . . . yet you still have no idea what it means? Remind me again why everyone around here finds it so amusing that you teach?

Mr. Kotter
07-16-2011, 07:59 PM
Still funny the 5000th time. :clap:

BTW, rant is a single syllable word of exceedlingly common usage, . . . yet you still have no idea what it means? Remind me again why everyone around here finds it so amusing that you teach?

From Merriam Webster, for your convenience:

Rant

as a transitive verb

: to utter in a bombastic declamatory fashion

Fit's a number of your posts exceedingly well, from where I sit. :hmmm:

Do you need some help with declamatory, also?

go bowe
07-17-2011, 08:25 PM
From Merriam Webster, for your convenience:

Rant

as a transitive verb

: to utter in a bombastic declamatory fashion

Fit's a number of your posts exceedingly well, from where I sit. :hmmm:

Do you need some help with declamatory, also?

is that a place where they pull the clams out of your foot?

Lzen
07-18-2011, 10:43 AM
This idea that the government doesn't get enough money from us is false and only the stupid believe it. Live within your means, scumbags, and quit looking at us like we're sheep to be sheared.

:clap: :clap:

BucEyedPea
07-18-2011, 11:02 AM
You never 'gave up trying,' you were never capable.

Your assertion is analogous to saying 'it's the 21st century, no one's good at sports anymore. I gave up trying a long time ago. Running out onto the field every couple of innings, or once a quarter, with my micropenis exposed can, at least, be entertaining.'

For well over a year, you've added NOTHING more than 'those guys are assholes, but those guys are REALLY assholes, but my friends and me, we're not assholes, we're reasonable and informed.'

You can't even be bothered to detail WTF you're even referring to, outside of 'there's these assholes and those assholes, and then there's cool people like me.'

Completely useless, more useless than a spambot for awesomedesignersunglasses.com. Day may come I'm in the market for sunglasses, no one yearns to join Camp Kotter, even if they had any idea what it entailed.

But...but...he uses the word "credible" a lot. That's enough.

ChiTown
07-18-2011, 11:05 AM
This. And, Chief Roundup, it's important to understand why they do this. It's to keep an entire class of people voting for them. It has nothing to do with what is right or best for the country. It all has to do with keeping their party in power by making that certain class dependent.

BINGO!

:clap:

Baby Lee
07-18-2011, 11:10 AM
From Merriam Webster, for your convenience:

Rant

as a transitive verb

: to utter in a bombastic declamatory fashion

Fit's a number of your posts exceedingly well, from where I sit. :hmmm:

Do you need some help with declamatory, also?

Well, since most definitions of declamatory characterize it as bombastic, dunno why I'd not help with a superfluous word.

MoF

declamatory - ostentatiously lofty in style; "a man given to large talk"; "tumid political prose"

bombastic - ostentatiously lofty in style; "a man given to large talk"; "tumid political prose"

The other characteristic associated with these synonyms is rhetorical. Also, I think your definition fails to reference anger.

My post was neither rhetorical or angry. It was substantive and reasoned. First, I made explicit your admitted position that you offer nothing of substance and seek only to inflame in as generic a manner as possible. Then I offered my condolences for the serial beatdown substantive discussion has occasioned on you around here. Finally I explained that your failings are not universally held.

Substantive, straightforward, and unemotional. Sharing no aspect of a rant.

Cave Johnson
07-21-2011, 02:22 PM
Today's ABC News poll shows that <b>62 percent believe we need a mixture of tax hikes and spending cuts to deal with the debt, compared with only 32 percent wanting spending cuts alone.</b> By far the most popular specific measure for tackling the debt is ending the Bush tax cuts for those earning over $250,000 a year - with a whopping 72 percent support. Its only near rivals are more Medicare and social security means-testing for wealthy retirees. 77 percent think the GOP has been too unwilling to compromise, compared with 58 percent who say the same of Obama. If this were a boxing match in the world of ideas, it would already have been won.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/07/who-will-win-the-debt-fight.html

AndChiefs
07-21-2011, 02:31 PM
Today's ABC News poll shows that 62 percent believe we need a mixture of tax hikes and spending cuts to deal with the debt, compared with only 32 percent wanting spending cuts alone. By far the most popular specific measure for tackling the debt is ending the Bush tax cuts for those earning over $250,000 a year - with a whopping 72 percent support. Its only near rivals are more Medicare and social security means-testing for wealthy retirees. 77 percent think the GOP has been too unwilling to compromise, compared with 58 percent who say the same of Obama. If this were a boxing match in the world of ideas, it would already have been won.

You're right...62 percent does equal 80 percent.

And it's very surprising that there's so much support for raising taxes on such a small amount of people rather than on everyone. Wait, no it isn't. Everyone's happy to shoulder the burden. As long as someone else does it.

And for the record, I'm in favor of increasing taxes along with steep spending cuts. If we want all these entitlement programs like "free" health care we all need to put in our share.

mlyonsd
07-21-2011, 02:37 PM
You're right...62 percent does equal 80 percent.

And it's very surprising that there's so much support for raising taxes on such a small amount of people rather than on everyone. Wait, no it isn't. Everyone's happy to shoulder the burden. As long as someone else does it.

And for the record, I'm in favor of increasing taxes along with steep spending cuts. If we want all these entitlement programs like "free" health care we all need to put in our share.

I agree with the emphasis placed on "all need to put in our share".

Cave Johnson
07-21-2011, 03:21 PM
You're right...62 percent does equal 80 percent.

Who gives a shit. Support for the structuring the debt deal consistent with Bowles-Simpson and Obama's proposal is widespread.

And it's very surprising that there's so much support for raising taxes on such a small amount of people rather than on everyone. Wait, no it isn't. Everyone's happy to shoulder the burden. As long as someone else does it.

And for the record, I'm in favor of increasing taxes along with steep spending cuts. If we want all these entitlement programs like "free" health care we all need to put in our share.

It's our right to vote up their taxes. It's their right to contribute ungodly amounts of money to prevent that from happening.

BucEyedPea
07-21-2011, 03:37 PM
Who gives a shit. Support for the structuring the debt deal consistent with Bowles-Simpson and Obama's proposal is widespread.


Our Framers called that the "tyranny of the majority."

It's our right to vote up their taxes.

No it's not a right. It's more like license to do what thou wilt.

Cave Johnson
07-21-2011, 03:40 PM
Our Framers called that the "tyranny of the majority."

Whither our poor, oppressed millionaires....

Bob Dole
07-21-2011, 03:43 PM
And for the record, I'm in favor of increasing taxes along with steep spending cuts. If we want all these entitlement programs like "free" health care we all need to put in our share.

This 40-something, single male with no children, who bought a home he could actually afford (thus gets no tax deduction for it), is pretty sure he already pays his share

BucEyedPea
07-21-2011, 04:05 PM
Whither our poor, oppressed millionaires....

That still the tyranny of the majority while they engage in envy which leads to justifying stealing.

Besides, as if they're the ones that are going to be taxed. Tax increases usually hit the middle class while claiming to go after the rich, because there is more of us. You ought to know that by now.

FD
07-21-2011, 04:19 PM
Some new polling:

As lawmakers on Capitol Hill continue to debate the possibility of a deal to raise the debt ceiling, new polling from the Washington Post and ABC News makes clear the political highs — and lows — of a number of proposals being bandied about.

When asked for their opinions on a wide range of possible ways to bring down the national debt, raising taxes on the wealthy — in a variety of forms — is without question the clear winner.

The biggest loser? Touching entitlements like Medicare, Medicaid and SocialSecurity.

More than seven in 10 respondents in the Post/ABC poll — 72 percent — said they favored the idea of raising taxes on those making $250,000 or more to help shrink the debt.

While, not surprisingly, 87 percent of Democrats supported such a move, so did 54 percent of self-identified Republicans. And, nearly six in 10 people said they would support raising taxes on oil and gas companies, including 55 percent of Republicans who agreed with the idea.

Those numbers suggest that the notion that any tax increase is anathema to the party base — a belief that seems to be guiding much of House Republicans’ negotiating strategy to date — may be misguided or, at least, overstated.

Other popular debt-reducing proposals included raising taxes on hedge funds (64 percent support) and raising taxes and/or premiums for wealthier Americans on Medicare (61 percent) and Social Security (66 percent).

While majorities were open to the idea of making more affluent Americans pay more for entitlement programs, the idea of making major changes to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security for the general population were broadly unpopular.

Seventy-two percent of people opposed cutting spending on Medicaid as a means of debt reduction, while 54 percent disagreed with the idea of raising the retirement age for Medicare from 65 years old to 67. Fifty-three percent didn’t like the idea of making changes to Social Security so that benefits increased at a slower rate. (Narrow majorities of Republicans opposed those proposed changes to Medicare and Social Security, for what it’s worth.)


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/the-political-dos-and-donts-of-a-debt-deal/2011/07/19/gIQArX7zOI_blog.html#pagebreak

BucEyedPea
07-21-2011, 04:26 PM
Some new polling:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/the-political-dos-and-donts-of-a-debt-deal/2011/07/19/gIQArX7zOI_blog.html#pagebreak

You do know we're not a democracy and should not be run as one. There is still such a thing as property rights which cannot be lost without due process. I wonder why that one never gets incorporated.

BucEyedPea
07-22-2011, 10:21 AM
Hey Pittsie, the Koch Brothers support tax increases too—on their competitors!

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59618.html


I like Lew's editorial on the linked event:

Just as the Koch Bros. pulled the strings on the allegedly anti-tax Republicans, getting them to repeal tax breaks on ethanol--that is, to increase taxes--the oil-industry Kochs are battling lower taxes for the natural gas industry, in an intra-power elite fight with T. Boone Pickens.

Fun to see the oligarchical cage match, though Politico, in good Kochian tradition, describes opposition to tax credits and deductions as free-market "purism"!
Need I mention that Ron Paul, unlike most Republicans, is always against raising taxes, and is for all "loopholes"? Loophole: the notion that the state owns all your income, and anything you are allowed to keep is slightly unethical.

Love the last part most!

HonestChieffan
07-22-2011, 10:27 AM
Kochs own a huge number of miles of Natural gas pipes. Why would they oppose something they would seemingly benefit from?

Natural gas is a by product of every well Kochs own and they are sellers of natural gas. Why would they oppose something they gain from?

Kochs own and transport huge amounts of Anhydrous Ammonia that is made from Natural gas. Why would they oppose something that could increase their net margin from fertilizer operations.

FishingRod
07-22-2011, 11:59 AM
Whither our poor, oppressed millionaires....

But for lucky happenstance we could have been born a citizen of (fill in cesspool of a country) and compared to them, our standard of living is much higher than us compared to a millionaire. How many of us are willing to give up what we don’t need and live in Soviet style housing so that we can take care of our fellow man? What morally is the difference? The top 1% of wage earners in the US collect about 18% of the income and pay about 38% of the federal income taxes. Now I would certainly trade income brackets with them but this philosophy, From each according to his ability, to each according to his need is of course an idea from Kari Max. That exact idea and justification led to the murder and torture of 100s of millions of our fellow human beings in the last century. I happen to own/need glasses and don’t really want us to follow the path of Cambodia. To establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, and promote the general Welfare. That is the mandate given our government and they need to stick to this and quit trying to fix everything and everyone. They are just not very good at it.

vailpass
07-22-2011, 12:03 PM
80% of some number of Americans live in a food desert. We need to raise taxes to give money to the world's largest retailer so they can afford to build more stores for the poor. 100% of some number of Americans approve this plan. We will then require all who earn or are worth more than $250,000 to "donate" all the food in their homes to these stores. They must also give their cars and furniture to inner city welfare recipients.
Current and future members of the House, Senate and Executive branches are of course excluded.

BucEyedPea
07-22-2011, 12:31 PM
Kochs own a huge number of miles of Natural gas pipes. Why would they oppose something they would seemingly benefit from?
Oh, I see, more support for the Mercantilist-Whig-Crony Capitalist wing of the Republican party—using govt to protect market share and regulate competition out.

[quote]\Natural gas is a by product of every well Kochs own and they are sellers of natural gas. Why would they oppose something they gain from?

Kochs own and transport huge amounts of Anhydrous Ammonia that is made from Natural gas. Why would they oppose something that could increase their net margin from fertilizer operations.

Yes I know. If this product is a benefit, and I think it is, then they can compete on their own in the market instead of taxing their competition out or funneling funds to politicians who will have no bid contracts. Ya' know as in a level playing field?