Jimmy Neutron Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 (edited) trickel down really does work. they told me that in the 80's It seems that Obama thinks it does... Speaking earlier Thursday at a White House event promoting American exports, Obama said the vote will determine whether the economy "moves forward or backward." The president again pressed Congress to pass the agreement, saying it has the potential to create millions of jobs. He said if it fails, Americans would see smaller paychecks and fewer jobs. No wonder some of the dems are freaking out. Karl Rove has figured out how to control Obama;s silky smooth voice.... Edited December 9, 2010 by Jimmy Neutron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 It seems that Obama thinks it does... No wonder some of the dems are freaking out. Karl Rove has figured out how to control Obama;s silky smooth voice.... Obama will win the Republican nomination for pres. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrumjuice Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Summers stressed the fact that economists have revised their forecasts for jobs and the economy based on the deal reached by the president. Failure in Congress, he said, would force economists to project more joblessness and a weaker economy. "It is important to understand that if this process were to hypothetically break down," he said, not only would those upper revisions be reversed "but a set of downward revisions would commence." He added, "I don't think at the end of the day, the Congress will take a step that materially increases the risk that this economy would stall out." I was against it before I was for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrumjuice Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 You lose. PRINCETON, NJ -- Two major elements included in the tax agreement reached Monday between President Barack Obama and Republican leaders in Congress meet with broad public support. Two-thirds of Americans (66%) favor extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for all Americans for two years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moneymakers Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Hmmmmmmmmmm New chants and comments from afar Nothing grows, until Obama goes! I can't wait to see the demonstrators in the streets shouting: "What do we want?" - "More Taxes!" "When do we want them?" - "Now!" Very interesting how things have changed. It used to be that the President was, also, the leader of his political party. This must be part of that "hope and change" thing. So, the President can't get the Republicans to do anything and now he can't get the Democrats to do anything. Wow, I'm really impressed with his leadership style. I thought the Congress was "lame duck". I didn't realize the Obama administration had already started it's "lame duck" time. They are obviously a bunch of racists because they disagree with the president, who is lord and savior of us all (except for those who disagree with him because they are racists). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 Actually, they are not racist, but the republicans withholding funds for 911 responders who contracted illnesses on that day because House Democrats didn't bend over and take it are pure trash. The repugs are clearly willing to test the extent of thier spin over redneck America over tax cuts for the wealthy while letting unemployment lapse AND the heroes of 911 suffer. I just cannot fathom that thier base is so gullible as to think they are actually do this for THEM! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 Actually, they are not racist, but the republicans withholding funds for 911 responders who contracted illnesses on that day because House Democrats didn't bend over and take it are pure trash. Tugs at the heart strings, to be sure. Still, not sure we should be doling out billions for them. Being emergency responders, it is logical that they had significant disabiity and health insurance. What exactly is the case they deserve billions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 I'm going to argue that a country that is broke needs a compelling reason to lower taxes. What is teh compelling reason for the tax cuts? Jobs? Record profits have not done that so why would tax breaks? Still haven't heard anyone defeat this argument. The tax rate extensions are going to have zero effect on unemployment. Tugs at the heart strings, to be sure. Still, not sure we should be doling out billions for them. Being emergency responders, it is logical that they had significant disabiity and health insurance. What exactly is the case they deserve billions? So much for the pious flagwaving of yesteryear. Now that veterans need help, 9-11 heroes need help, the worthless armchair warriors most in favor of military bellicosity are the first to question how can we afford it? Here's a clue - with a tiny fraction of the $70 billion per year the tax extensions for the top rate will cost. Tell me again how much more the top rate "earners" deserve it over people maimed for life. I do enjoy these tales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 Still haven't heard anyone defeat this argument. The tax rate extensions are going to have zero effect on unemployment. So much for the pious flagwaving of yesteryear. Now that veterans need help, 9-11 heroes need help, the worthless armchair warriors most in favor of military bellicosity are the first to question how can we afford it? Here's a clue - with a tiny fraction of the $70 billion per year the tax extensions for the top rate will cost. Tell me again how much more the top rate "earners" deserve it over people maimed for life. I do enjoy these tales. Tell me again why the money the top earners EARN should be treated differently than what other people EARN? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 Still haven't heard anyone defeat this argument. The tax rate extensions are going to have zero effect on unemployment. So much for the pious flagwaving of yesteryear. Now that veterans need help, 9-11 heroes need help, the worthless armchair warriors most in favor of military bellicosity are the first to question how can we afford it? Here's a clue - with a tiny fraction of the $70 billion per year the tax extensions for the top rate will cost. Tell me again how much more the top rate "earners" deserve it over people maimed for life. I do enjoy these tales. Why not raise everyone's taxes to pay for it? Why the fixation on just raising the taxes of certain people, particularly the people that employ the most people. I agree raising taxes on top wage earners will not cause people to lose their jobs, though you are naive if you think once recovery actually does start to occur that it won't hinder job creation. Still put all that aside, why the left's fixation on just raising taxes on a few? The few that already pay by far the most already? Is it just because it is easier to pay for the ever expanding government when you only isolate one small group? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 Tell me again why the money the top earners EARN should be treated differently than what other people EARN? It's social justice to forcibly take from some and give to others. There is no good argument, they know it. We should all be taxed at the same rate once above the poverty line. Of course if people actually had to pay for the services they demand from government they'd stop demanding those services and politicians wouldn't be able to buy people's votes with certain peoples tax dollars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 It's social justice to forcibly take from some and give to others. There is no good argument, they know it. We should all be taxed at the same rate once above the poverty line. Of course if people actually had to pay for the services they demand from government they'd stop demanding those services and politicians wouldn't be able to buy people's votes with certain peoples tax dollars. I am being 100% serious. Ursa seems like a very smart guy but I would really like to hear an answer for this. Raise taxes for ALL people if we need the money so bad. Or maybe we could cut waste and trim some spending???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 I am being 100% serious. Ursa seems like a very smart guy but I would really like to hear an answer for this. Raise taxes for ALL people if we need the money so bad. Or maybe we could cut waste and trim some spending???? We should do both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 I am being 100% serious. Ursa seems like a very smart guy but I would really like to hear an answer for this. Raise taxes for ALL people if we need the money so bad. Or maybe we could cut waste and trim some spending???? I am in favor of reverting to the pre-2002 rates for all. Have been throughout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 I am in favor of reverting to the pre-2002 rates for all. Have been throughout. What was the economy like then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 I am in favor of reverting to the pre-2002 rates for all. Have been throughout. I'm in favor of the pre-1913 rates for all, or the same rate for everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 What was the economy like then? Terrible,with all those high taxes stunting growth and...........oh, wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 I'm in favor of the pre-1913 for everything in the world Yup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 Yup. Editing peoples posts is childish, but I guess that is to be expected from you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 I'm in favor of the pre-1913 rates for all It was so much better when robber barons roamed the land and the worthless poor had one toilet between 500. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 I am in favor of reverting to the pre-2002 rates for all. Have been throughout. Then why all the talk about the top earners and the cost of extending the rates for the top earners? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 Editing peoples posts is childish, but I guess that is to be expected from you. You have the best Huddle comebacks of all time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 Then why all the talk about the top earners and the cost of extending the rates for the top earners? Like I've said before, I'm fine with every earning category going to pre-1992. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 Then why all the talk about the top earners and the cost of extending the rates for the top earners? Because that on it's own for one year is enough to pay for the health care plan for four years (and look at the right wing screaming about THAT). Because all the arguments about how hiring will be adversely affected are a crock of $hit. Because people here argue all the time that marginal rates are irrelevant.......until they're not (which is when they need them to make an argument). Because it really would make absolutely no difference whatsoever to the people being taxed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 Still haven't heard anyone defeat this argument. The tax rate extensions are going to have zero effect on unemployment. So much for the pious flagwaving of yesteryear. Now that veterans need help, 9-11 heroes need help, the worthless armchair warriors most in favor of military bellicosity are the first to question how can we afford it? Here's a clue - with a tiny fraction of the $70 billion per year the tax extensions for the top rate will cost. Tell me again how much more the top rate "earners" deserve it over people maimed for life. I do enjoy these tales. Yer boy Obama says his agreement will create millions of jobs. Who's to argue with that genius? I know it's a key difference we'll never agree on, but I think all people deserve to keep more of their money vs. it being handed to those that did not earn it. That said, I don't think tax cuts should have been extended for everyone, not do I think $250 checkes should be mailed to each SS recipient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts