Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

First Pearl Harbor, then 911, and now this


SayItAintSoJoe
 Share

Recommended Posts

Not really. The main problem with the democratic party (though they have many) isn't that the extremists are at the helm - its that they are too spineless to make tough spending cuts. To their credit, the Dems are far more willing to make compromises. For example, the republicans want to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for 100% of America. The Dems are willing to meet them most of the way by extending those cuts for 99% of America. But somehow that's not good enough for the GOP.

 

The current GOP leadership would rather burn everyone than help 99% of America - they won't compromise at all. How do you effectively manage a relationship with someone who won't give an inch on anything, and makes their main goal destroying the opposition rather than building solutions?

 

 

You might to check that. I assure you the dems will not raise taxes on everyone. If they do the party will get crushed even worse than last mid term.

 

Taxation should be off the table until we can get an actual budget for a change and figure out how to reign in spending to levels we can afford.

 

Want to get out of debt. Balance the Federal Budget like the States are forced to. Figure out how to re patriot cash and drastically lower corporate taxation tied to American investment long term to stimulate domestic expansion to create jobs.

 

Put America back to work. Our current system pushes jobs off shore and we are stuck at 8.2% unemployment with real unemployment around 15%. Check that 8.3% announce today.

 

I can see the day we have a millionaire and billionaire tax hike but until we address Sub S filings this battle will rage on between those that create and a government that wants to take.

 

It is refreshing to see Graham at least address the issue but I assure he won't act unless the government steps up with real reform not centered on attacking those that create jobs and ultimately pay the vast percentage of taxes.

 

Our problems are not really revenue based. They are spending based. The government must address the borrow rate of around 4 BILLION daily.

 

Trying to make a tax rate increase argument will never happen unless we have real solutions to a government spending beyond its means. The Senate has yet to force budget compromise since Obama has been in office so when one points a finger at the GOP you might want to point the other one at Reid and Liberals that have seized control of government.

 

This should not be a chicken/egg solution. Come up with a plan then set policy around a friggen budget. Today, we only see weak class warfare BS arguments.

 

I for one hope the Moderate Republicans continue to get their hat handed to them. Bush was extremely moderate from a fiscal perspective and spent crazy. Obama makes him look like an amateur. Someone has to step up and begin to put real plans in place for the country.

 

News flash, it will be painful much like a family that maxed out credit cards and can't purchase anything until paid down. Creating 4 billion every day in new interest payments is the problem and that is due to spending more than the approximately 2.4 TRILLION we already take in and spend. The rest is other peoples money.

 

____________________

 

Oh and while I think mandating birth control is an outright attack on Religious beliefs and not warranted, the comment was stupid.

Edited by Ice1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The current group of new Repubs in the House currently hold quite a bit of power throughout the party. The attempts by senior Repubs to engage in bipartisanship and compromise is being held hostage. This is the most "extreme" exercise of congressional radicalism I remember in my lifetime. IMO , anyone who doesn't admit to this is in denial, unaware of how historically off-kilter the House’s recent actions/behavior are, or maybe just afraid to embrace their inner-radicalism.

 

Regan has rolled over in his grave a couple hundred times in the last 2 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tax increases are bad. And yet the GOP's policy is to raises taxes on everyone, rather than protect 99% of America? Anyone who rejects a deal that gives them 99% of what they want isn't making an effort to compromise.

 

 

Neither of us are going to agree with each other. What happens if the GOP congress faces this argument 99 times and compromises each time? Yes, A tax increase for all. A much better compromise would be for the GOP to except tax increases only when the Democrats agree to spending cuts. I am not sure deciding on a level of tax increase is a fair compromise. I am all for paying more in taxes as long as two things happen. A. Cut spending B. Outlaw the ability of government employees to Unionize. I am 100% OK with private employees unionizing.

 

I mean honestly your analogy is similar to this. Hey Wife I want you to swallow. She says no way. I say ok but you have to swallow it, but it is ok if you go to the bathroom and throw it up. Awesome compromise. I am taking about mushroom pizza by the way.

Edited by Grimm74
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Tax increases are bad. And yet the GOP's policy is to raises taxes on everyone, rather than protect 99% of America? Anyone who rejects a deal that gives them 99% of what they want isn't making an effort to compromise.

 

 

Well, that 1% gives them 99% if their campaign contributions so what do you expect. Citizens United decision is way closer to the stupid topic comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Neither of us are going to agree with each other. What happens if the GOP congress faces this argument 99 times and compromises each time? Yes, A tax increase for all. A much better compromise would be for the GOP to except tax increases only when the Democrats agree to spending cuts. I am not sure deciding on a level of tax increase is a fair compromise. I am all for paying more in taxes as long as two things happen. A. Cut spending B. Outlaw the ability of government employees to Unionize. I am 100% OK with private employees unionizing.

 

I mean honestly your analogy is similar to this. Hey Wife I want you to swallow. She says no way. I say ok but you have to swallow it, but it is ok if you go to the bathroom and throw it up. Awesome compromise. I am taking about mushroom pizza by the way.

 

 

From what I understand, federal employee unions are not necessarily a big issue. Its the state and local ones that are out of control. So much for leaving things to the wisdom of the states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The current group of new Repubs in the House currently hold quite a bit of power throughout the party. The attempts by senior Repubs to engage in bipartisanship and compromise is being held hostage. This is the most "extreme" exercise of congressional radicalism I remember in my lifetime. IMO , anyone who doesn't admit to this is in denial, unaware of how historically off-kilter the House’s recent actions/behavior are, or maybe just afraid to embrace their inner-radicalism.

 

Regan has rolled over in his grave a couple hundred times in the last 2 years.

 

 

Yep, this guy decided to quit because compromise is no longer possible

http://www.ohio.com/news/break-news/ohio-republican-u-s-rep-latourette-announces-retirement-1.323639

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/editorials/latourette-exits-1.324008

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On top of what I said the GOP has stated they are willing to raise taxes if equal spending cuts were implemented. They do prefer to wait till the economy is on better footing. Now that is a compromise. Not your GOP are going against what they believe in b/c of your 99% rule.

Edited by Grimm74
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither of us are going to agree with each other. What happens if the GOP congress faces this argument 99 times and compromises each time? Yes, A tax increase for all. A much better compromise would be for the GOP to except tax increases only when the Democrats agree to spending cuts. I am not sure deciding on a level of tax increase is a fair compromise. I am all for paying more in taxes as long as two things happen. A. Cut spending B. Outlaw the ability of government employees to Unionize. I am 100% OK with private employees unionizing.

 

I mean honestly your analogy is similar to this. Hey Wife I want you to swallow. She says no way. I say ok but you have to swallow it, but it is ok if you go to the bathroom and throw it up. Awesome compromise. I am taking about mushroom pizza by the way.

 

Perhaps you are not up to speed on current events. Allow me to assist.

 

Without congressional action 100% of America will get a tax increase on January 1, 2013 as the Bush-era tax cuts expire. (Certain mandatory spending cuts will also go into effect, which are not directly related, but which will undoubtedly impact us all. Its helpful to at least mention them both as they combine to form what many refer to as the "fiscal cliff").

 

To avert the cliff, the GOP wants to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for 100% of America. The Dems have said okay, we'll compromise and give you 99% of what you want. The GOP's response was "F you, if its not 100% then its tax increases for everyone."

 

Without compromise you cannot have a healthy relationship with someone. The strategy of never compromising for fear of the imaginary is idiotic when faced with concrete and immediate disasters, like the "fiscal cliff" were headed off of in less than 5 months if we do nothing. Your sophomoric comparison to oral sex does little to help resolve the real problem that currently threatens us all in a very real way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that 1% gives them 99% if their campaign contributions so what do you expect. Citizens United decision is way closer to the stupid topic comparison.

 

Did you know that approximately 77% of this year's campaign contributions came from corporate donations? Unreal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To avert the cliff, the GOP wants to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for 100% of America. The Dems have said okay, we'll compromise and give you 99% of what you want.

 

 

If I'm not mistaken 100% of people will get at a tax cut on their income up to a certain amount (250K married couples, 150K singles...or something like that). So if you're a married couple with a taxable income of 300K the first 250K will get taxed at the same rate it is now. The remaining 50K at the higher rate.

Edited by SayItAintSoJoe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps you are not up to speed on current events. Allow me to assist.

 

Without congressional action 100% of America will get a tax increase on January 1, 2013 as the Bush-era tax cuts expire. (Certain mandatory spending cuts will also go into effect, which are not directly related, but which will undoubtedly impact us all. Its helpful to at least mention them both as they combine to form what many refer to as the "fiscal cliff").

 

To avert the cliff, the GOP wants to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for 100% of America. The Dems have said okay, we'll compromise and give you 99% of what you want. The GOP's response was "F you, if its not 100% then its tax increases for everyone."

 

 

 

This is what will happen IMO regardless who wins the Presidency. The GOP will play hardball on this issue because they can and frankly should. Once the government decides to actually have an approved budget, then and only then IMO will taxation come to the forefront.

 

The House has already sent this proposal on I believe so Reid and the gang will have to deal with it. One big problem for the Dems is featured speaker former President Clinton has already agreed with the GOP's take on taxation at this time. That is one huge defection that will be hammered away on if the Dems really want to make this a formal campaign issue.,

 

Acting like this issue is only a republican issue would be a losing democratic strategy IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I'm not mistaken 100% of people will get at a tax cut on their income up to a certain amount (250K married couples, 150K singles...or something like that). So if you're a married couple with a taxable income of 300K the first 250K will get taxed at the same rate it is now. The remaining 50K at the higher rate.

 

Yes. So even the top 1% effectively get a tax cut on their first $250k/$150 of income.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

former President Clinton has already agreed with the GOP's take on taxation at this time. That is one huge defection that will be hammered away on if the Dems really want to make this a formal campaign issue.,

 

That's not true. The GOP wants the cuts for the top 1% made permanent. Former president Clinton stated he'd have no problem extending the cuts for the top 1% temporarily until a long-term solution could be reached.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. So even the top 1% effectively get a tax cut on their first $250k/$150 of income.

 

 

Don't you think we should call it what it is after the last few years? If by some miracle the Dems plan goes through then these earners will not get a tax increase on that income.

 

The country is already operating on a tax code and any change is an increase or decrease.

 

It is certainly not a tax cut given actual policy is in place. Semantics.

Edited by Ice1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not true. The GOP wants the cuts for the top 1% made permanent. Former president Clinton stated he'd have no problem extending the cuts for the top 1% temporarily until a long-term solution could be reached.

 

 

Exactly, key word is temporarily which means after January 1st; right? This is a decent negotiating point if the Senate ever gets busy to get something to the President. Long term solution is also key phrasing.

 

Of course the GOP wants them permanent at this point as there is no long term spending solution.

 

Pretty sure the comment I highlighted of yours never mentioned permanent BTW so not really sure which part wasn't true. I do think the tax code will be extended for all.

Edited by Ice1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps you are not up to speed on current events. Allow me to assist.

 

Without congressional action 100% of America will get a tax increase on January 1, 2013 as the Bush-era tax cuts expire. (Certain mandatory spending cuts will also go into effect, which are not directly related, but which will undoubtedly impact us all. Its helpful to at least mention them both as they combine to form what many refer to as the "fiscal cliff").

 

To avert the cliff, the GOP wants to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for 100% of America. The Dems have said okay, we'll compromise and give you 99% of what you want. The GOP's response was "F you, if its not 100% then its tax increases for everyone."

 

Without compromise you cannot have a healthy relationship with someone. The strategy of never compromising for fear of the imaginary is idiotic when faced with concrete and immediate disasters, like the "fiscal cliff" were headed off of in less than 5 months if we do nothing. Your sophomoric comparison to oral sex does little to help resolve the real problem that currently threatens us all in a very real way.

 

 

Being condensending isn't the best way to go about business, but I am sure Ive shot out condescending remarks.

 

So let me break this down again to a more elementary level. :)

 

Compromise 101 as I see how it would best work in this situation.

 

Your way:

 

Like I said if the GOP agreed to this 99 times under your preemies than the Dems would not have compromised at all and would get a tax increase for everyone. And if the GOP does not agree in any one of those 99 instances you can clam the GOP did not compromise. This just does not compute.

 

My way:

 

GOP agree to tax increases. Dems agree to equal spending cuts. Do it 99 times and in the end both side have equal pain. That is compromise.

 

I really have no other way to spell this out more simplistically, and to continue my condescending ways I just do not understand how you do not get it.

 

I mean come on we can always take a snap shot of the government process and label it as one side not compromising.

 

 

By the way since we obviously spent in a leveraged way equal cuts to equal tax increase will not resolve the debt problem. I also understand the Dems feel the tax cuts from the past scew this number as well. Unfortunatley for the Dems taxing folks has finite limits so at some point Dems would have to agree to some sort of 2 for 1 deal if we want to avert a national financial disaster. I agree that sucks for the Dems, but it is just a fact. If we act now and look at it from a very long term perspective and we can stay the course this ratio can be greatly minimized.

Edited by Grimm74
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being condensending isn't the best way to go about business, but I am sure Ive shot out condescending remarks.

 

So let me break this down again to a more elementary level. :)

 

Compromise 101 as I see how it would best work in this situation.

 

Your way:

 

Like I said if the GOP agreed to this 99 times under your preemies than the Dems would not have compromised at all and would get a tax increase for everyone. And if the GOP does not agree in any one of those 99 instances you can clam the GOP did not compromise. This just does not compute.

 

My way:

 

GOP agree to tax increases. Dems agree to equal spending cuts. Do it 99 times and in the end both side have equal pain. That is compromise.

 

I really have no other way to spell this out more simplistically, and to continue my condescending ways I just do not understand how you do not get it.

 

I mean come on we can always take a snap shot of the government process and label it as one side not compromising.

 

 

By the way since we obviously spent in a leveraged way equal cuts to equal tax increase will not resolve the debt problem. I also understand the Dems feel the tax cuts from the past scew this number as well. Unfortunatley for the Dems taxing folks has finite limits so at some point Dems would have to agree to some sort of 2 for 1 deal if we want to avert a national financial disaster. I agree that sucks for the Dems, but it is just a fact. If we act now and look at it from a very long term perspective and we can stay the course this ratio can be greatly minimized.

I honestly don't know what you think you're talking about. It sounds like you may be concerned with eliminating the deficit.

 

What *I'm* talking about is avoiding the fiscal cliff we're going to drive off in less than 5 months. It's a narrow, short term issue that's being held hostage by GOP boulwarism. If any politician refuses to give an inch in order to address a gigantic short term crisis because we can't simultaneously cure another very real but undeniably long term and complex problem then we're all fucked. I hope you like your 2013 tax increases.

 

And I don't want to hear about spending cuts. Because if we do nothing there will already be mandatory 9% across the board spending cuts that go into effect in January 2013. The GOP already got what they wanted because Congress was incapable of crafting a compromise on raising the debt ceiling last year. The 9% cuts were a by product of that inability to agree on something different. And why did that happen? Because Boehner went to the mat on what used to be a routine bi-partisan vote on the debt ceiling.

Edited by yo mama
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly don't know what you think you're talking about. It sounds like you may be concerned with eliminating the deficit.

 

What *I'm* talking about is avoiding the fiscal cliff we're going to drive off in less than 5 months. It's a narrow, short term issue that's being held hostage by GOP boulwarism. If any politician refuses to give an inch in order to address a gigantic short term crisis because we can't simultaneously cure another very real but undeniably long term and complex problem then we're all fucked. I hope you like your 2013 tax increases.

 

And I don't want to hear about spending cuts. Because if we do nothing there will already be mandatory 9% across the board spending cuts that go into effect in January 2013. The GOP already got what they wanted because Congress was incapable of crafting a compromise on raising the debt ceiling last year. The 9% cuts were a by product of that inability to agree on something different. And why did that happen? Because Boehner went to the mat on what used to be a routine bi-partisan vote on the debt ceiling.

 

So you think once this vote is taken and the GOP accepts the tax cuts we are all going to come together and sing songs together? A lot of crap that goes down does so b/c their feet are under fire. And please do not act like the Dems haven't thrown in other things into this bill. The compromise botton does not just sit with the 1%ers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you think once this vote is taken and the GOP accepts the tax cuts we are all going to come together and sing songs together? A lot of crap that goes down does so b/c their feet are under fire. And please do not act like the Dems haven't thrown in other things into this bill. The compromise botton does not just sit with the 1%ers.

I think that people need to stop being so freakin' ideological and start getting practical. We elected these clowns to work together and a run country, not get into WWF cage matches.

 

I started off staying that the Dems have their warts, most critically that they lack the courage to make tough cuts. But at least they're at the table willing to negotiate in good faith. I do not believe the same can be said of today's GOP leadership. The GOP already has 9% across the board cuts if they do nothing. And an extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for 99% of the country, plus cuts on the top 1%'s first $250k/$150k, is on the table. But if they can't get 100% of what they want then they'll drive us all off the cliff? That's not leadership - that's childishness.

Edited by yo mama
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that people need to stop being so freakin' ideological and start getting practical. We elected these clowns to work together and a run country, not get into WWF cage matches.

 

I started off staying that the Dems have their warts, most critically that they lack the courage to make tough cuts. But at least they're at the table willing to negotiate in good faith. I do not believe the same can be said of today's GOP leadership. The GOP already has 9% across the board cuts if they do nothing. And an extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for 99% of the country, plus cuts on the top 1%'s first $250k/$150k, is on the table. But if they can't get 100% of what they want then they'll drive us all off the cliff? That's not leadership - that's childishness.

 

 

Yes, they have warts just like the GOP and yes I have recognized the fact that you have stated the Dems are not up to cuts... BUT that bill is not only a tax increase on the 1% ,that bill has a whole bunch of "attachments"....like the fact that Obama wants to allow students to write off their student loans in bankruptcy....but wait ... wow that seems so noble...lets role back to the 1970s crises...oh but...sorry he is just talking of proposing it ONLY for private student loans....which literally makes up about 2% of the student loans. The US government NOW pretty much controls that space and he isnt talking about government student loans.... WHY..... I mean why signal out the absolute sliver of those student loans??? It might be a bit more meaningful if he included all student loans... get it.

 

honestly i hate going at this in a dramatic fashion but you just wanted to ignore the fact that it is just a tax increase on the top 1%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information