Six Months To Go.

[Guest]

Your taxes are going up; A LOT!!.

Nobody has to do anything for that to happen. They happen by Congress doing nothing. The only way to stop the increase is for Congress to act.

It's more than just your income tax rising. You are forewarned!!!


http://www.atr.org/six-months-untilbr-largest-tax-hikes-a5171#

[Guest]

Your taxes are going up; A LOT!!.

Nobody has to do anything for that to happen. They happen by Congress doing nothing. The only way to stop the increase is for Congress to act.

It's more than just your income tax rising. You are forewarned!!!


http://www.atr.org/six-months-untilbr-largest-tax-hikes-a5171#

If I remember correctly these tax cuts were put in place to stimulate jobs and growth. In fact I believe they were called Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. They were intended to be temporary.

But we all know the jobs never came......

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/02/bush_recession.html

[Guest]

Hum lets see... unemployment rate from 2001 - 2007 hovered right around 4.8%. That's about 7 years straight. Bet there's a lot of folks would like to see that number back again.

Nothing and I mean nothing Obama has done can be considered a success unless you are Obama... the one who is systematically and on purpose destroying our private sector economy. In that regard I guess he is a success.

It's a neat bait and switch. Run the country into bankruptcy on purpose and then claim the only way out is to tax the hell out of everyone. VAT, Cap-n-tax and more are coming. Anyone really think that will get employers hiring again??? Let me ask that again. Anyone really think that will get employers hiring again???

That will put the final nail in our private sector economy.... which is exactly what he wants to do.

Here's a dirty little secret for all you liberals. Private sector jobs fuel our economy, not the government. Government consumes, it doesn't produce anything.

[Guest]

If I remember correctly these tax cuts were put in place to stimulate jobs and growth. In fact I believe they were called Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. They were intended to be temporary.

But we all know the jobs never came......

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/02/bush_recession.html

Ok, I read your "fact-filled, 'unbiased' " link that you posted to back up your theories on the ineffectiveness of the tax cuts that Bush implemented, just before congress was taken over by democrats, who immediately attempted to go on a spending spree. Now it's your turn to check out some facts from someplace other than your usual sources of 'talking points'.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/01/Ten-Myths-About-the-Bush-Tax-Cuts
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/02/The-2001-and-2003-Bush-Tax-Cuts-Economic-Effects-of-Permanent-Extension

Read, consider, analyze and explain. I also realize there were too many fiscally irresponsible Republicans trying to slice off their piece of the 'cash cow' . As expected, revenues increased but unfortunately, spending increased more. Nothing anybody does will do any good if the reckless, out-of-control spending doesn't stop. Government's job is to protect our borders, our rights and our freedom. It is NOT their job to decide how much of the fruits of our labors we get to keep. If everyone is receiving Government money, where does the government get the money to hand out? Obama's stash? Soros? China? The Senate? The House?

[Guest]

If I remember correctly these tax cuts were put in place to stimulate jobs and growth. In fact I believe they were called Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. They were intended to be temporary.

But we all know the jobs never came......

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/02/bush_recession.html


As error prone the presentation of your link is, you ignore the thrust of this thread and that is the TAX INCREASE that ALL will feel. The LOWEST tax rate increases by 5%....as much as you folks tried to make it a tax cut on only the rich, it obviously was not and now EVERYONE WILL PAY.

The death tax returns, the marriage penalty tax comes back and that is just the start.

If you read RICHIELION's link, you would know that these "increases" are simply the beginning...then we get into the real stuff....the taxes associated with the health care bill.

Now, your party tells you that the Bush tax cuts were only for the rich....read the link that RICHIE supplied, and you will find that is not and has never been the case.

Now, your party tells you that the Bush tax cuts did nothing for the economy....but you read the unemployment rates for the period and compare them to the present and what do you say ? Number of jobs created ? Gee...unemployment at 4.5....duh !!

Now, your party tells you that Bush rose the deficit, AND HE DID, but this President in a short time makes him look like a total amateur.

[Guest]

Bottom line is it really doesn't matter. Obama could announce tomorrow that he was the anti-christ and as long as he wasn't Bush or a Conservative not one Liberal would give a whit. Liberals hate Bush and they hate Conservatism even more. Blind to the obvious truth is a phenomenon I'll really never understand but it seems to exists today in spades.

You can ask one simple question a million times to a Liberal and they will ignore it every time.

NAME ONE SOCIETY IN HISTORY THAT EVER TAXED AND SPENT ITSELF BACK INTO PROSPERITY?

[Guest]

It's really incredible DK; just the other day Pelosi said that Unemployment Benefits are the best creator of new jobs. In an economic vacuum, I guess, you can say putting money in the hands of the unemployed allows them to buy things which creates need and generates business, but to promote this as a desirable solution is naive and, well just plain nuts.

The great Ronald Reagan taught us, and most people alive today, that cutting taxes generates growth and generates jobs and in turn generates greater government revenue, because of the increased business activity.

I believe that the present regime knows this and the destruction of our economy and our way of life is being done on purpose and to an end.

[Guest]

just the other day Pelosi said that Unemployment Benefits are the best creator of new jobs.

The scary thing is, many believe it to be true just because she said it. After all the government never lies to us now do they... oh unless you are Bush.

Her statement is so outlandish it defies reality. Yet they are the one's running our country and Liberals will defend them blindly and unequivocally. It's almost embarrassing.

[Guest]

Unemployment insurance payments for more than six months will increase unemployment, always has always will.

Higher taxes reduces incentive to invest which reduces jobs, always has always will.

When Governments take from productive people it reduces production, always has always will.

[Guest]

Unemployment insurance payments for more than six months will increase unemployment, always has always will.

Higher taxes reduces incentive to invest which reduces jobs, always has always will.

When Governments take from productive people it reduces production, always has always will.

Succinct and eloquent

[Guest]

Indeed... for those of us who understand that.

[Guest]

Ok, I read your "fact-filled, 'unbiased' " link that you posted to back up your theories on the ineffectiveness of the tax cuts that Bush implemented, just before congress was taken over by democrats, who immediately attempted to go on a spending spree. Now it's your turn to check out some facts from someplace other than your usual sources of 'talking points'.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/01/Ten-Myths-About-the-Bush-Tax-Cuts
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/02/The-2001-and-2003-Bush-Tax-Cuts-Economic-Effects-of-Permanent-Extension

Read, consider, analyze and explain. I also realize there were too many fiscally irresponsible Republicans trying to slice off their piece of the 'cash cow' . As expected, revenues increased but unfortunately, spending increased more. Nothing anybody does will do any good if the reckless, out-of-control spending doesn't stop. Government's job is to protect our borders, our rights and our freedom. It is NOT their job to decide how much of the fruits of our labors we get to keep. If everyone is receiving Government money, where does the government get the money to hand out? Obama's stash? Soros? China? The Senate? The House?

And your heritage links are unbaised? The tax cuts which were supposed to spur growth and create jobs didn't. And they still are not creating any jobs so what is there purpose now?

[Guest]

Bottom line is it really doesn't matter. Obama could announce tomorrow that he was the anti-christ and as long as he wasn't Bush or a Conservative not one Liberal would give a whit. Liberals hate Bush and they hate Conservatism even more. Blind to the obvious truth is a phenomenon I'll really never understand but it seems to exists today in spades.

You can ask one simple question a million times to a Liberal and they will ignore it every time.

NAME ONE SOCIETY IN HISTORY THAT EVER TAXED AND SPENT ITSELF BACK INTO PROSPERITY?

I could ask the same about any society who tax cut itself back into prosperity? Regan had to increase taxes......least you forget.

[Guest]

So tell me, how will massive tax increases get small business hiring again?

BTW, your history is a bit off...least you forget.

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

[Guest]

So tell me, how will massive tax increases get small business hiring again?

BTW, your history is a bit off...least you forget.

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

The question is how will keeping these massive tax cuts get small business hiring again?

[Guest]

Sorry, I don't really get your logic on this one. Apparently you didn't read the materiel.

[Guest]

Sorry, I don't really get your logic on this one. Apparently you didn't read the materiel.

These tax cuts didn't spur growth or create jobs when they were first introduced. You asked how a tax increase will create new jobs....my question is only the reverse...How many jobs will be created now by these more than 8 year old tax cuts.....Surely that should be easy to answer.

[Guest]

All your answers are right here. It's an easy read.

The economic benefits of ERTA were summarized by President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers in 1994: "It is undeniable that the sharp reduction in taxes in the early 1980s was a strong impetus to economic growth."

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

[Guest]

These tax cuts didn't spur growth or create jobs when they were first introduced. You asked how a tax increase will create new jobs....my question is only the reverse...How many jobs will be created now by these more than 8 year old tax cuts.....Surely that should be easy to answer.

Many employers are playing the "wait and see" game. Many stopped hiring and in fact started "laying off" when Obama got the democrat nomination for president. I suspect that if nothing is done and taxes increase by default, you will, indeed see a double dip recession or a true depression.

[Guest]

Bush 4.7% unemployment (seven years)

Obama 10% unemployment (18 months)

[Guest]

What a lot of people don't understand is that the unemployment rate rising is not primarily due to a loss of jobs but to a dearth of "new jobs". Our economy has to have a constant increase in jobs as our population is ever increasing and more people join the workforce than leave it.

What tax cuts do is encourage investment and growth and job creation. Tax increases and the threat of new more onerous taxes in the future stifle investment and corporate expansion and entrepreneurship.

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/06/the-truth-bush-tax-cuts-created-more-jobs-than-the-obama-pelosi-spend-your-way-to-hell-plan/

[Guest]

What a lot of people don't understand is that the unemployment rate rising is not primarily due to a loss of jobs but to a dearth of "new jobs". Our economy has to have a constant increase in jobs as our population is ever increasing and more people join the workforce than leave it.

What tax cuts do is encourage investment and growth and job creation. Tax increases and the threat of new more onerous taxes in the future stifle investment and corporate expansion and entrepreneurship.

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/06/the-truth-bush-tax-cuts-created-more-jobs-than-the-obama-pelosi-spend-your-way-to-hell-plan/

For many years this economic theory has been widely accepted by one political party. Certainly these tax cuts did nothing to create jobs or stir growth considering that in the end this country faced the biggest financial disaster since the Great Depression.

Corporations enjoy great tax breaks from state and local scorces as well as the transfer price loophole. Transfer price allows them to transfer profits offshore and pay little to no US taxes. Aw the Global Economy at its best.

These cuts were sold as temporary to stimulate growth....time's up

[Guest]

For many years this economic theory has been widely accepted by one political party. Certainly these tax cuts did nothing to create jobs or stir growth considering that in the end this country faced the biggest financial disaster since the Great Depression.

Corporations enjoy great tax breaks from state and local scorces as well as the transfer price loophole. Transfer price allows them to transfer profits offshore and pay little to no US taxes. Aw the Global Economy at its best.

These cuts were sold as temporary to stimulate growth....time's up

Sorry, you're basing your argument on flawed logic. It's not a theory but proven fact, over and over again. What you and others can't bring themselves to accept is that individuals are able to survive and prosper by their own sweat, blood and tears, without government bailing them out. Bush was wrong to cave in and compromise with the TARP, we admit it. Corporations don't pay taxes, people do. Government doesn't create jobs, people and companies do. Nobody ever got a job from a poor person. As far as the Financial disaster goes, three words, Dodd, Frank, Obama. Those three had the biggest hand in creating the mess at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Maybe they didn't do the dirty deeds, but they certainly kept anything from being done about it until they got theirs out of it. Compromise and bipartisianship does NOT mean "Do it MY way, because I'm in power". It should mean; put all ideas on the table, then choose to use what is best, no matter who proposed it. And don't get me started on Obama's petulant whining that it's all the republican's fault he can't advance his progressive agenda. :mad:

[Guest]

I could ask the same about any society who tax cut itself back into prosperity? Regan had to increase taxes......least you forget.

care to back that up with fact, not rhetoric?

[Guest]

That's all the left has is rhetoric. Liberalism fails every time it's tried. It's based on nothing more than feelings and centralized government command and control. Actual results and outcomes are meaningless. They mean to rule, not lead.

[Guest]

:agree:That's all the left has is rhetoric. Liberalism fails every time it's tried. It's based on nothing more than feelings and centralized government command and control. Actual results and outcomes are meaningless. They mean to rule, not lead.

:agree::agree::agree:

[Guest]

That's all the left has is rhetoric. Liberalism fails every time it's tried. It's based on nothing more than feelings and centralized government command and control. Actual results and outcomes are meaningless. They mean to rule, not lead.

I hope everybody enjoyed their "Freedom from Europeanism Day"

[Guest]

I hope everybody enjoyed their "Freedom from Europeanism Day"

????????????????????????

[Guest]

????????????????????????

I read that today somewhere. I'm assuming it means freedom from England? It has a good ring to it, huh?

[Guest]

If I remember correctly these tax cuts were put in place to stimulate jobs and growth. In fact I believe they were called Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. They were intended to be temporary.

But we all know the jobs never came......

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/02/bush_recession.html

What kind of person wants higher taxes? Why?

Yoda

[Guest]

What kind of person wants higher taxes? Why?

Yoda

Maybe the same type that abhors capitalism and would like to convert USA into a socialist state?

[Guest]

What kind of person wants higher taxes? Why?

Yoda

I think it's mostly a "hate Bush, love Obama" thing come hell or high water. The libs are never going to admit that a "Mussolini" is now in the White House, when they have so much wrapped up in him emotionally. I would think in the future there will be a bull market for therapists as the libs/progressives realize what happens when you get what you wished for.

[Guest]

Sorry, you're basing your argument on flawed logic. It's not a theory but proven fact, over and over again. What you and others can't bring themselves to accept is that individuals are able to survive and prosper by their own sweat, blood and tears, without government bailing them out. Bush was wrong to cave in and compromise with the TARP, we admit it. Corporations don't pay taxes, people do. Government doesn't create jobs, people and companies do. Nobody ever got a job from a poor person. As far as the Financial disaster goes, three words, Dodd, Frank, Obama. Those three had the biggest hand in creating the mess at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Maybe they didn't do the dirty deeds, but they certainly kept anything from being done about it until they got theirs out of it. Compromise and bipartisanship does NOT mean "Do it MY way, because I'm in power". It should mean; put all ideas on the table, then choose to use what is best, no matter who proposed it. And don't get me started on Obama's petulant whining that it's all the republican's fault he can't advance his progressive agenda. :mad:

Excuse me but you think that I haven't worked to get to where I am today. MG how elitist of you. Why shouldn't corporations pay taxes? Do they not make money? I pay taxes on the money I make. That is what is wrong with your position....

Then you make me laugh.....Obama wasn't even in office even this financial crisis hit yet you blame him for Freddie and Fannie. Get a grip.

The Repubs were handed a surplus and Obama was handed the biggest financial crisis since the great depression...How many years were the Repubs in charge of Congress...how much bi-partisanship did we see then? NADA. Bi-partisanship also doesn't mean negotiate to get everything you can into the bill and then vote against it....think Snow and now most likely Brown and then cry about how they just won't listen to you.

Do you think we still don't have the "I am the Decider line still ringing in our ears"?

[Guest]

What kind of person wants higher taxes? Why?

Yoda

Anything taken to extreme is not good. So I live in Colorado, in the summer, the land of TABOR. Taxpayer Bill of Rights...ever heard of it? Worse thing that ever happened to this state. The guy who authored it lives here in Colorado Springs....perhaps the worse part of this plan is whenever a surplus of taxes were collected this had to be returned to the taxpayers rather than being saved for a rainy day. As we all know the rainy day has hit....so when I go for a walk in the park no bathrooms are open, no trash bins....all the swimming pools are closed, no money. Police and fire departments cut...libraries closed. Schools...... Its a mess.

I am willing to pay my taxes...

The point is these tax cuts were sold as temporary to stimulate job creation and growth....they did NOT and are NOT to this day.

[Guest]

Maybe the same type that abhors capitalism and would like to convert USA into a socialist state?

Typical Republican HATE SPEECH! barf

[Guest]

I think it's mostly a "hate Bush, love Obama" thing come hell or high water. The libs are never going to admit that a "Mussolini" is now in the White House, when they have so much wrapped up in him emotionally. I would think in the future there will be a bull market for therapists as the libs/progressives realize what happens when you get what you wished for.

Are you using Mussolini cause you can't say the name you really want.

[Guest]

Typical Republican HATE SPEECH! barf

That ain't hate. That is the facts. Anybody who uses taxpayers money to "create" a job and really believes it is a "created" job, is delusional.

Only the private sector can create a job. Government can only redistribute taxpayer money.

[Guest]

Typical Republican HATE SPEECH!

Typical left response.

If you don't agree with the Washington liberal socialist agenda you are branded as a racist, hater, bigot, homophobe or whatever their name of the day is.

That's really the only play they have left in their book because their actual ideology is and always has been a failure.

That's why liberals during campaigns have to sound conservative and move to the center to get elected. Problem with that is once elected the move hard left and proceed to reck the country. I think people are getting wise to that.

[Guest]

Typical left response.

If you don't agree with the Washington liberal socialist agenda you are branded as a racist, hater, bigot, homophobe or whatever their name of the day is.

That's really the only play they have left in their book because their actual ideology is and always has been a failure.

That's why liberals during campaigns have to sound conservative and move to the center to get elected. Problem with that is once elected the move hard left and proceed to reck the country. I think people are getting wise to that.

Recently someone in this forum suggest only that a poster needed a hug....that was branded as liberal hate speech. You said nothing...kinda makes your argument moot.

[Guest]

Typical left response.

If you don't agree with the Washington liberal socialist agenda you are branded as a racist, hater, bigot, homophobe or whatever their name of the day is.

That's really the only play they have left in their book because their actual ideology is and always has been a failure.

That's why liberals during campaigns have to sound conservative and move to the center to get elected. Problem with that is once elected the move hard left and proceed to reck the country. I think people are getting wise to that.

Exactly. They like to brand people and blame previous administrations for their shortcomings. (which are massive)

[Guest]

Exactly. They like to brand people and blame previous administrations for their shortcomings. (which are massive)

And you all never engage in that activity.

[Guest]

And you all never engage in that activity.

I know. Aren't we good?

[Guest]

Excuse me but you think that I haven't worked to get to where I am today. MG how elitist of you. Why shouldn't corporations pay taxes? Do they not make money? I pay taxes on the money I make. That is what is wrong with your position....

Then you make me laugh.....Obama wasn't even in office even this financial crisis hit yet you blame him for Freddie and Fannie. Get a grip.

The Repubs were handed a surplus and Obama was handed the biggest financial crisis since the great depression...How many years were the Repubs in charge of Congress...how much bi-partisanship did we see then? NADA. Bi-partisanship also doesn't mean negotiate to get everything you can into the bill and then vote against it....think Snow and now most likely Brown and then cry about how they just won't listen to you.

Do you think we still don't have the "I am the Decider line still ringing in our ears"?

I fail to see the attack on you personally. No mention of that anywhere. I have no doubt you worked hard to get where you are. I also made no mention that corporations shouldn't pay taxes. Yes, corps. are taxed and that is added to their expenses as a cost of doing business, and ultimately passed on to the consumer. On a smaller scale, if you are gong to the store and a friend asks you to pick something up for them, say $20, do you just get your $20 back and pay the tax yourself? Maybe once in a while. But on a regular basis, you'll ask for the tax you paid too.
Glad you got a chuckle from that, no, I realize Obama was not in office yet, but, he was in the senate before he got promoted 'above his pay grade' (a perfect example of the 'Peter Principle') and when not campaiging, could vote (other than present) on proposals affecting financial regulation. A minor role, obviously, but his other ties and positions he held several places bother me more. I also notice you make no defense for Frank and Dodd.
Let's forget about the POTUS for a moment and look back. The only power of the office is in the Veto power and the 'bully pulpit'. Congress determines how much and where to spend. Repubs were NOT handed a surplus in '94. Major strains on the economy were 9/11, Katrina, followed by a war on terror, whatever your feelings on that war, all expensive but didn't require 2,000 page, unread 'porkulous' bills that cost trillions, to be passed. Snow is not exactly a shining example of a fiscally conservative republican. Only says what she needs to, to get elected. I am worried that Brown may move in that direction also. I have NO respect for ANY politician that does not stand by his/her principles. I disagree with Feingold but respect him for holding firm to his principles. Yes, Repubs failed to hold to their principles and that is what elections are for. (Term limits come to mind) Both sides are responsible for the current mess and it's time to clean house.
Remember, none of this is to be construed as an attack on you, personally but simply a discourse on our differing views. If we present facts and not rhetoric, we are both richer for the experience.

[Guest]

Are you using Mussolini cause you can't say the name you really want.

Boy this thread really has you riled doesn't it. As my teachers always said "The truth hurts". You're going a little off the wall here.

Don't try to put words in my mouth or twist the words I do utter. I said exactly who I meant. Look up the history of the rise of Mussolini and see if the fascist/socialist state he created isn't eerily similar to was is incrementally being created right here in our country.

I pretty sure who you were referring to in your post, but I think the last time I heard that name it was by your friends referring to the former president.

P.S. Wait!!, I must be nuts. You see the correlation in the Mussolini and Obama regimes? Sorry; I just realized what I was asking.

[Guest]

I fail to see the attack on you personally. No mention of that anywhere. I have no doubt you worked hard to get where you are. I also made no mention that corporations shouldn't pay taxes. Yes, corps. are taxed and that is added to their expenses as a cost of doing business, and ultimately passed on to the consumer. On a smaller scale, if you are gong to the store and a friend asks you to pick something up for them, say $20, do you just get your $20 back and pay the tax yourself? Maybe once in a while. But on a regular basis, you'll ask for the tax you paid too.
Glad you got a chuckle from that, no, I realize Obama was not in office yet, but, he was in the senate before he got promoted 'above his pay grade' (a perfect example of the 'Peter Principle') and when not campaigning, could vote (other than present) on proposals affecting financial regulation. A minor role, obviously, but his other ties and positions he held several places bother me more. I also notice you make no defense for Frank and Dodd.
Let's forget about the POUTS for a moment and look back. The only power of the office is in the Veto power and the 'bully pulpit'. Congress determines how much and where to spend. Repubs were NOT handed a surplus in '94. Major strains on the economy were 9/11, Katrina, followed by a war on terror, whatever your feelings on that war, all expensive but didn't require 2,000 page, unread 'porkulous' bills that cost trillions, to be passed. Snow is not exactly a shining example of a fiscally conservative republican. Only says what she needs to, to get elected. I am worried that Brown may move in that direction also. I have NO respect for ANY politician that does not stand by his/her principles. I disagree with Feingold but respect him for holding firm to his principles. Yes, Repubs failed to hold to their principles and that is what elections are for. (Term limits come to mind) Both sides are responsible for the current mess and it's time to clean house.
Remember, none of this is to be construed as an attack on you, personally but simply a discourse on our differing views. If we present facts and not rhetoric, we are both richer for the experience.

From your orginal post Corporations don't pay taxes, people do. Why shouldn't Corporations pay taxes? The Supreme Court just made them people a few weeks ago....Let them be taxed. I didn't defend Dodd because he has no defense....however Frank is just another Republican punching bag....lets attack the gay guy. Frank wasn't chairman of the committee as long as the Repubs were. But I am glad you also admit that the Repubs surely were not fiscal conservitives. But Clinton did leave a surplus.... Protested the war.

I agree and have said many times there is blame enough to go around.....

I too enjoy a good debate.

[Guest]

Boy this thread really has you riled doesn't it. As my teachers always said "The truth hurts". You're going a little off the wall here.

Don't try to put words in my mouth or twist the words I do utter. I said exactly who I meant. Look up the history of the rise of Mussolini and see if the fascist/socialist state he created isn't eerily similar to was is incrementally being created right here in our country.

I pretty sure who you were referring to in your post, but I think the last time I heard that name it was by your friends referring to the former president.

P.S. Wait!!, I must be nuts. You see the correlation in the Mussolini and Obama regimes? Sorry; I just realized what I was asking.

And that is why you can't utter that name...

So I have a question....if you are so against Socialist things how do you feel about the non-funded multi-billion dollar entitlement Medicare prescription drug program.

[Guest]

I know. Aren't we good?

Nope just hypocrits as this post proves.

[Guest]

From your orginal post Corporations don't pay taxes, people do. Why shouldn't Corporations pay taxes? The Supreme Court just made them people a few weeks ago....Let them be taxed. I didn't defend Dodd because he has no defense....however Frank is just another Republican punching bag....lets attack the gay guy. Frank wasn't chairman of the committee as long as the Repubs were. But I am glad you also admit that the Repubs surely were not fiscal conservitives. But Clinton did leave a surplus.... Protested the war.

I agree and have said many times there is blame enough to go around.....

I too enjoy a good debate.

You mean it would be OK to attack him if he was straight? You guys always hiding behind cards.(race, color, sexual orientation,etc. etc.)

[Guest]

From your orginal post Corporations don't pay taxes, people do. Why shouldn't Corporations pay taxes? The Supreme Court just made them people a few weeks ago....Let them be taxed. I didn't defend Dodd because he has no defense....however Frank is just another Republican punching bag....lets attack the gay guy. Frank wasn't chairman of the committee as long as the Repubs were. But I am glad you also admit that the Repubs surely were not fiscal conservitives. But Clinton did leave a surplus.... Protested the war.

I agree and have said many times there is blame enough to go around.....

I too enjoy a good debate.

At NO point did I advocate not taxing corporations. What the point of the statement is, is that taxing a corporation or business does not have the same effect on them as it does on the individual. When business gets taxed, they simply figure that into the cost of doing business and raise prices accordingly to maintain a reasonable profit. If that cost becomes prohibitive, they simply stop doing business. How does that help the consumer? As far as Frank is concerned, or anyone else, I don't care if they are gay, straight, Vulcan, Klingon or Ferengi as long as they are honorable persons. Frank's problem is not his personal preferences but the fact that he is a complete IDIOT. He was the one to come out shortly before the 'meltdown' to assure us that "everything is fine, nothing to see here."
We also have quote 'ringing in our ears' too. Can you honestly be proud of "For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country." ?

[Guest]

And that is why you can't utter that name...

So I have a question....if you are so against Socialist things how do you feel about the non-funded multi-billion dollar entitlement Medicare prescription drug program.

To name a name means I would have to be reading your mind. I, unlike you, try not to assume too much.

I don't want to live in a Socialist Bureauacracy. I don't was my President to admire the government of Venezeula.

[Guest]

You mean it would be OK to attack him if he was straight? You guys always hiding behind cards.(race, color, sexual orientation,etc. etc.)

You are the ones you do the attacking.....

[Guest]

To name a name means I would have to be reading your mind. I, unlike you, try not to assume too much.

I don't want to live in a Socialist Bureauacracy. I don't was my President to admire the government of Venezeula.

But you didn't answer the question.....

[Guest]

You are the ones you do the attacking.....

You got to be kidding me. . Frank doesn't get the fraction of the attacks that your party gives Palin or Bush, for that matter.

[Guest]

You got to be kidding me. . Frank doesn't get the fraction of the attacks that your party gives Palin or Bush, for that matter.

If you follow the string of posts here my point was that both sides employ attack politics and hate speech. Now with this post you agree.

[Guest]

If you follow the string of posts here my point was that both sides employ attack politics and hate speech. Now with this post you agree.

I was only responding about your charges that republicans were attacking a gay guy. (your words)
".however Frank is just another Republican punching bag....lets attack the gay guy. "

[Guest]

If you follow the string of posts here my point was that both sides employ attack politics and hate speech. Now with this post you agree.

True, as far as you take it. There are a few minor differences in the attacks though. For the most part, the conservative attacks focus on undesireable actions such as lies, criminal activities, and questionable actions or tactics. The 'Hate' speech is focused on hating what is being done to the country or system. The far-left seems to focus more on personal things such as looks, beliefs, race, family and labels. The most extreme examples that come to mind are the T.E.A. party events and what actually happens at them and how they are reported on, by the liberal media as opposed to events such as the protests at the G-20 conference, liberal demonstrations at campuses, etc. Would you care to clarify your definition of 'Hate Speech' and 'Rascist speech' ? I really am interested.

[Guest]

True, as far as you take it. There are a few minor differences in the attacks though. For the most part, the conservative attacks focus on undesirable actions such as lies, criminal activities, and questionable actions or tactics. The 'Hate' speech is focused on hating what is being done to the country or system. The far-left seems to focus more on personal things such as looks, beliefs, race, family and labels. The most extreme examples that come to mind are the T.E.A. party events and what actually happens at them and how they are reported on, by the liberal media as opposed to events such as the protests at the G-20 conference, liberal demonstrations at campuses, etc. Would you care to clarify your definition of 'Hate Speech' and 'Racist speech' ? I really am interested.

Sorry...that is just spin. All you have to do is look at some of the things posted in this forum. Hate Speech, for example only would be to call someone a Fag, Queer etc. and I don't need to use the word for Racist speech. In this string someone said, in response to a poster, "I think someone needs a hug" that was labeled as liberal hate speech.

I find the TEA party events to be very scary and hate filled....just take a look at the signs and guns. But the G-20 demos scare you...sometimes I think that liberals get painted with the board brush of anarchists. Many of the protesters in Seattle were actually anarchists......


In my opinion the either party looks the other way or rationalizes any untruths but then sounds the alarm when they think the other party has lied.

So for example I think Clinton lied about having sex and I also think that GW Bush lied about WMD and the War on Terror. So what do you think?

[Guest]

Sorry...that is just spin. All you have to do is look at some of the things posted in this forum. Hate Speech, for example only would be to call someone a Fag, Queer etc. and I don't need to use the word for Racist speech. In this string someone said, in response to a poster, "I think someone needs a hug" that was labeled as liberal hate speech.

I find the TEA party events to be very scary and hate filled....just take a look at the signs and guns. But the G-20 demos scare you...sometimes I think that liberals get painted with the board brush of anarchists. Many of the protesters in Seattle were actually anarchists......

In my opinion the either party looks the other way or rationalizes any untruths but then sounds the alarm when they think the other party has lied.

So for example I think Clinton lied about having sex and I also think that GW Bush lied about WMD and the War on Terror. So what do you think?

Since we are discussing opinions and not facts, I definitely agree that there is a lot of spin, however, I believe we differ greatly on where the spin is coming from. As far as postings go in the forum, those that are posted without FACTS to back them up are nothing more than personal OPINIONS. We are still free to have our OWN opinions, no matter what the facts are. (Not defending anyone, just saying) The 'hug' comment was an inappropriate, patronizing response to the poster. If you want to see real hate speech, go to some of the links provided by WayneT to back up his arguments. The posters are personal, vulgar and crude.
Do you find the T.E.A. parties scary from personal experience or from information provided by the unbiased, liberal press and news outlets? My PERSONAL experience has been very positive. (we have attended several events and meetings) I enjoy reading the creative signs and some of the costumes. I would feel safer at one of these events with dozens of people exercising their right to open carry than I would in some areas of large cities. (and even some small ones) At NO time have I heard 'Hate speech', racial or ethnic slurs. The "HATE" is directed at policies that infringe on our rights and freedoms. The only 'hate' expressed around these rallies came from a handful of people (at a safe distance fortunately for us) that were trying to protest the rally. After being ignored, they finally slunk off. Yes, the G-20 and similar demonstrations scare me. Only used that as a recent example. I have a distinct aversion to having rocks bounced off my admittedly (some say) hard head and being beaten into submission by peace-loving protesters with their signs. I don't understand why a protest is license to destroy property and harm those who don't agree with your views.
As for Clinton and Bush, never thought I would look sort of fondly on the Clinton era (compared to the current one) and IF Bush lied I think it was because of faulty intelligence gathered from multiple sources which fooled the entire free world. Hardest thing in the world to prove is a negative. I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that, with the amount of time Saddam had, that he couldn't have moved them. Again, you asked what I think. Back to you.......

[Guest]

Sorry...that is just spin. All you have to do is look at some of the things posted in this forum. Hate Speech, for example only would be to call someone a Fag, Queer etc. and I don't need to use the word for Racist speech. In this string someone said, in response to a poster, "I think someone needs a hug" that was labeled as liberal hate speech.

I find the TEA party events to be very scary and hate filled....just take a look at the signs and guns. But the G-20 demos scare you...sometimes I think that liberals get painted with the board brush of anarchists. Many of the protesters in Seattle were actually anarchists......


In my opinion the either party looks the other way or rationalizes any untruths but then sounds the alarm when they think the other party has lied.

So for example I think Clinton lied about having sex and I also think that GW Bush lied about WMD and the War on Terror. So what do you think?

How many Tea Parties have you attended? I bet your just repeating your sources who try to belittle the Tea Partiers by referring to them with sexual slurs.

[Guest]

Since we are discussing opinions and not facts, I definitely agree that there is a lot of spin, however, I believe we differ greatly on where the spin is coming from. As far as postings go in the forum, those that are posted without FACTS to back them up are nothing more than personal OPINIONS. We are still free to have our OWN opinions, no matter what the facts are. (Not defending anyone, just saying) The 'hug' comment was an inappropriate, patronizing response to the poster. If you want to see real hate speech, go to some of the links provided by WayneT to back up his arguments. The posters are personal, vulgar and crude.
Do you find the T.E.A. parties scary from personal experience or from information provided by the unbiased, liberal press and news outlets? My PERSONAL experience has been very positive. (we have attended several events and meetings) I enjoy reading the creative signs and some of the costumes. I would feel safer at one of these events with dozens of people exercising their right to open carry than I would in some areas of large cities. (and even some small ones) At NO time have I heard 'Hate speech', racial or ethnic slurs. The "HATE" is directed at policies that infringe on our rights and freedoms. The only 'hate' expressed around these rallies came from a handful of people (at a safe distance fortunately for us) that were trying to protest the rally. After being ignored, they finally slunk off. Yes, the G-20 and similar demonstrations scare me. Only used that as a recent example. I have a distinct aversion to having rocks bounced off my admittedly (some say) hard head and being beaten into submission by peace-loving protesters with their signs. I don't understand why a protest is license to destroy property and harm those who don't agree with your views.
As for Clinton and Bush, never thought I would look sort of fondly on the Clinton era (compared to the current one) and IF Bush lied I think it was because of faulty intelligence gathered from multiple sources which fooled the entire free world. Hardest thing in the world to prove is a negative. I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that, with the amount of time Saddam had, that he couldn't have moved them. Again, you asked what I think. Back to you.......

I saw the HUG thing completely differently....the sad thing with the electronic age is we are really unable to tell, for the most part, the intent of the poster. So I took it at face value. I did meet some TEA party people and they did scare me....all the yelling, taking over meetings to what end? And the signs.....the guns. Guns scare me big time.

I have been to several anti-war protests all peaceful...no rock throwing.

As I have 3 nephews in the service, one has been to the war zone 5 times winning the purple heart on his Th tour, I expect the President to only use the troops in defense of the United States. I struggle with the Afghan war as the 9/11 attacks came from there...but there was no excuse to invade a country that did NOT attack us. I still say both Bush and his administration totally lied in the run up to the war and all through out the 8 years...leaving the current administration holding the bag.

You don't like the main stream media and I think Fox Noise is a mouth piece for the Republican party. I mainly watch Morning Joe, PBS Evening News and Rachel Maddow. Today I took in about 1 hour a Fox Noise just to check in.

[Guest]

Fox Noise is a mouth piece for the Republican party

Just to keep it real, the other major networks are mouth pieces for the Democratic party. That's about 5 to 1.

I still say both Bush and his administration totally lied in the run up to the war and all through out the 8 years

Lied about what?

[Guest]

Hey!!!; the point of this post was my dismay at having to pony up big bucks in January when the tax cuts sunset.

I'm thinking, if Cologal is representative of the Libs, than the Libs could agree to pay the renewed tax burden, that she so ardently wants reinstated, while the rest of us continue to benefit from the Bush Tax Cuts.

We'll keep calling it the Bush Tax Cuts as that will influence the Libs to continue to treat them with disdain. We can even agree to consider ourselves "losers" for agreeing to continue in a program named after the horrid former President.

This is my bi-partisan solution to give everyone what they want. What could be fairer?

[Guest]

I saw the HUG thing completely differently....the sad thing with the electronic age is we are really unable to tell, for the most part, the intent of the poster. So I took it at face value. I did meet some TEA party people and they did scare me....all the yelling, taking over meetings to what end? And the signs.....the guns. Guns scare me big time.

I have been to several anti-war protests all peaceful...no rock throwing.

As I have 3 nephews in the service, one has been to the war zone 5 times winning the purple heart on his Th tour, I expect the President to only use the troops in defense of the United States. I struggle with the Afghan war as the 9/11 attacks came from there...but there was no excuse to invade a country that did NOT attack us. I still say both Bush and his administration totally lied in the run up to the war and all through out the 8 years...leaving the current administration holding the bag.

You don't like the main stream media and I think Fox Noise is a mouth piece for the Republican party. I mainly watch Morning Joe, PBS Evening News and Rachel Maddow. Today I took in about 1 hour a Fox Noise just to check in.

Even at face value I still felt that it wasn't an appropriate response and did nothing to advance the topic or discussion.
Moving on.....It sounds like you happened to be at one of the 'Town Hall' events, rather than a TEA party event. Those events have had a history of degenerating into shouting matches when people, who are upset because their representatives are ignoring their input, are talked down to or have fun made of their concerns and ridiculed for their concern. The make-up of the TEA parties is truly bi-partisian, both racial and political. (actually more than bi-. All parties and races) All are citizens concerned about the way things are going. As for the signs, I really get a kick out of the creativity, except for the 'fringe kooks' that EVERY group seems to attract. Accept those for what, or who, they are. Guns scare the he** out of a lot of people and, rightly so, when in the hands of idiots, incompetents, young children and those who want to settle a grudge. Any sane person would be scared in that situation. I have no problem when in the hands, or holster, of someone who respects AND fears the power of that gun.
I realize that ALL protests don't degenerate into violence but, since NONE of the news services spend much time on peaceful gatherings, a disproportionate amount of protests are reported on when it happens. Look at what happens when a sports team has a major accomplishment. "Let's all get drunk and go burn something and break windows". That's not political, just human stupidity.
To your nephews...Thank them for their service and sacrifice. Very proud of them. A Purple Heart is not given out lightly. I hope that he is OK. My son and his wife are both Marines. My son was in Iraq for a short time and thankfully did not encounter any problems. My service was USAF stationed at a SAC base with B-52's and Atlas missiles. Although everyone wants to focus on the WMD problem, the AQ training camps were there and were being supported by the regime. Personally, if I were POTUS I would probably lie to the press and congress as long as I could, because they don't have the sense to KEEP THEIR MOUTHS SHUT on matters of national security. In WWII reporters were on the battlefield with the troops and knew enough to hold their stories until after the action was over.
Someone on TOTV has a quote by Mark Twain that I like, "If you don't read the papers, you're uninformed. If you do read the papers, you're mis-informed". If you're only exposed to one opinion or one side of an argument, you have no basis in fact to form your own opinion. How effective would our court system be if only the defense or prosecution were allowed to present their case? Given only one set of facts, a jury or judge would have a very hard time making an informed decision. As far as FOX being an 'arrm of the Republican Party', that seems to me to be a bit of a reach. In the NEWS segments, I see the stories being presented fairly straightforward without biased commentary. The OPINION shows on the other hand strongly lean conservative. There are liberals on the shows and they identify themselves from time to time. Stossel calls himself libertarian, Colmes is very liberal, Sean calls himself a conservative, Greta says she is liberal. Point being, no matter their leanings, they try to present both sides to the viewers, in the stories and the interviews. I am curious about the hour of Fox you watched. Was it a straight hour or hit and run during the day. Makes a difference on reaching an opinion.
Enough rambling for now and sorry to be so long-winded but I hate one-line 'zingers'. (except in jest)

[Guest]

Hey!!!; the point of this post was my dismay at having to pony up big bucks in January when the tax cuts sunset.

I'm thinking, if Cologal is representative of the Libs, than the Libs could agree to pay the renewed tax burden, that she so ardently wants reinstated, while the rest of us continue to benefit from the Bush Tax Cuts.

We'll keep calling it the Bush Tax Cuts as that will influence the Libs to continue to treat them with disdain. We can even agree to consider ourselves "losers" for agreeing to continue in a program named after the horrid former President.

This is my bi-partisan solution to give everyone what they want. What could be fairer?

Didn't mean to Hi-jack your thread. Just got carried away having a dialogue instead of trading one-line 'zingers'. ....but i digress....
On one of the shows, probably Sean's, I liked the solution that was suggested. If you don't think the government is getting enough of your money, nobody is stopping you from writing a check to the IRS. I don't believe the IRS was flooded with checks from kind, compassionate liberals, unless they got it from their conservative neighbors. :p

[Guest]

Just to keep it real, the other major networks are mouth pieces for the Democratic party. That's about 5 to 1.



Lied about what?

I won't even comment about your paranoia regarding the MSM...you perceive a problem because you believe the reporters to have a liberal bias.

Lied about what.... "We Do Not Torture" "Yellow Cake in *****" "Weapons of Mass Distruction"

[Guest]

Even at face value I still felt that it wasn't an appropriate response and did nothing to advance the topic or discussion.
Moving on.....It sounds like you happened to be at one of the 'Town Hall' events, rather than a TEA party event. Those events have had a history of degenerating into shouting matches when people, who are upset because their representatives are ignoring their input, are talked down to or have fun made of their concerns and ridiculed for their concern. The make-up of the TEA parties is truly bi-partisian, both racial and political. (actually more than bi-. All parties and races) All are citizens concerned about the way things are going. As for the signs, I really get a kick out of the creativity, except for the 'fringe kooks' that EVERY group seems to attract. Accept those for what, or who, they are. Guns scare the he** out of a lot of people and, rightly so, when in the hands of idiots, incompetents, young children and those who want to settle a grudge. Any sane person would be scared in that situation. I have no problem when in the hands, or holster, of someone who respects AND fears the power of that gun.
I realize that ALL protests don't degenerate into violence but, since NONE of the news services spend much time on peaceful gatherings, a disproportionate amount of protests are reported on when it happens. Look at what happens when a sports team has a major accomplishment. "Let's all get drunk and go burn something and break windows". That's not political, just human stupidity.
To your nephews...Thank them for their service and sacrifice. Very proud of them. A Purple Heart is not given out lightly. I hope that he is OK. My son and his wife are both Marines. My son was in Iraq for a short time and thankfully did not encounter any problems. My service was USAF stationed at a SAC base with B-52's and Atlas missiles. Although everyone wants to focus on the WMD problem, the AQ training camps were there and were being supported by the regime. Personally, if I were POTUS I would probably lie to the press and congress as long as I could, because they don't have the sense to KEEP THEIR MOUTHS SHUT on matters of national security. In WWII reporters were on the battlefield with the troops and knew enough to hold their stories until after the action was over.
Someone on TOTV has a quote by Mark Twain that I like, "If you don't read the papers, you're uninformed. If you do read the papers, you're mis-informed". If you're only exposed to one opinion or one side of an argument, you have no basis in fact to form your own opinion. How effective would our court system be if only the defense or prosecution were allowed to present their case? Given only one set of facts, a jury or judge would have a very hard time making an informed decision. As far as FOX being an 'arrm of the Republican Party', that seems to me to be a bit of a reach. In the NEWS segments, I see the stories being presented fairly straightforward without biased commentary. The OPINION shows on the other hand strongly lean conservative. There are liberals on the shows and they identify themselves from time to time. Stossel calls himself libertarian, Colmes is very liberal, Sean calls himself a conservative, Greta says she is liberal. Point being, no matter their leanings, they try to present both sides to the viewers, in the stories and the interviews. I am curious about the hour of Fox you watched. Was it a straight hour or hit and run during the day. Makes a difference on reaching an opinion.
Enough rambling for now and sorry to be so long-winded but I hate one-line 'zingers'. (except in jest)


The nephew with the Purple Heart is a Marine..... And a nut job pulled a gun out on me when I asked him to stop throwing rocks at a dog. Scared the crap out of me.

[Guest]

Hey!!!; the point of this post was my dismay at having to pony up big bucks in January when the tax cuts sunset.

I'm thinking, if Cologal is representative of the Libs, than the Libs could agree to pay the renewed tax burden, that she so ardently wants reinstated, while the rest of us continue to benefit from the Bush Tax Cuts.

We'll keep calling it the Bush Tax Cuts as that will influence the Libs to continue to treat them with disdain. We can even agree to consider ourselves "losers" for agreeing to continue in a program named after the horrid former President.

This is my bi-partisan solution to give everyone what they want. What could be fairer?

Richie....

I am really confused these tax cuts were enacted to encourage growth and create jobs. We should be able to agree, given the current situation they failed to do what they were supposed to do. What purpose do they have now? Let's forget about the last 8 years...lets just talk about the last year have these tax cuts helped to encourage growth or create jobs? I think not.

[Guest]

Just to keep it real, the other major networks are mouth pieces for the Democratic party. That's about 5 to 1.



Lied about what?

Agree. Obama has lied so much it would be easier to tell his truths, which are far and few.

[Guest]

You can't have tax cuts and outrageous spending and expect the tax cuts to work. You must be fiscally responsible which means cut taxes and curb spending together. The government can't continue to spend the money generated by the tax cuts (and more) and expect things to pick up.

[Guest]

But the speaker of the house says that paying people to do nothing stimulates the economy.

[Guest]

Just to keep it real, the other major networks are mouth pieces for the Democratic party. That's about 5 to 1.



Lied about what?

From a Nexis search a few moments ago:

Total words about the NASA Muslim outreach program in the New York Times: 0.

Total words about the NASA Muslim outreach program in the Washington Post: 0.

Total words about the NASA Muslim outreach program on NBC Nightly News: 0.

Total words about the NASA Muslim outreach program on ABC World News: 0.

Total words about the NASA Muslim outreach program on CBS Evening News: 0.

If you were to receive your news from any one of these outlets, or even all of them together, and you heard about some sort of controversy involving the Obama administration redefining the space agency’s mission to feature outreach to Muslim countries, your response would be, “Huh?” Among all the news these distinguished outlets have seen fit to cover in recent days, the NASA story has not made the cut.

[Guest]

Richie....

I am really confused these tax cuts were enacted to encourage growth and create jobs. We should be able to agree, given the current situation they failed to do what they were supposed to do. What purpose do they have now? Let's forget about the last 8 years...lets just talk about the last year have these tax cuts helped to encourage growth or create jobs? I think not.

Your point is nonsense. The fact is that job creation has plummeted on Obama's watch. Bush had the aftermath of 9/11 and the prosecution of the War on Terror and still the economy moved along with the help of the Tax Cuts with unemployment steady around 4%. Steady, meaning jobs were created because the work force is constantly expanding.
When the banks busted, due to their abandonment of of tested lending principles demanded under duress by the Democratic Banking Committee in Bush's last year, he succumbed to trying what his enemies were demanding with the TARP.
With the election of this anti-capitalist President our economy has plummeted with few businesses in their right mind expanding while our country is dismantled. The deficit has TRIPLED in 18 months under this increasingly Socialist Regime and the re-organization of our way of life in under way.
Business is pulling it's head into it's shell until this war on them is over.
Please wake up.

[Guest]

From a Nexis search a few moments ago:

Total words about the NASA Muslim outreach program in the New York Times: 0.

Total words about the NASA Muslim outreach program in the Washington Post: 0.

Total words about the NASA Muslim outreach program on NBC Nightly News: 0.

Total words about the NASA Muslim outreach program on ABC World News: 0.

Total words about the NASA Muslim outreach program on CBS Evening News: 0.

If you were to receive your news from any one of these outlets, or even all of them together, and you heard about some sort of controversy involving the Obama administration redefining the space agency’s mission to feature outreach to Muslim countries, your response would be, “Huh?” Among all the news these distinguished outlets have seen fit to cover in recent days, the NASA story has not made the cut.

But who cares.....its not an outreach to Muslim terrorists that would be news. I saw the story somewhere, and I don't normally watch Fox, so the Director said he was trying to raise awareness of the role of Muslims in Space Exploration. What heck is wrong with that? I think its silly but it NOT something to get my short in a twist about. Which is exactly what Fox is all about.

[Guest]

Your point is nonsense. The fact is that job creation has plummeted on Obama's watch. Bush had the aftermath of 9/11 and the prosecution of the War on Terror and still the economy moved along with the help of the Tax Cuts with unemployment steady around 4%. Steady, meaning jobs were created because the work force is constantly expanding.
When the banks busted, due to their abandonment of of tested lending principles demanded under duress by the Democratic Banking Committee in Bush's last year, he succumbed to trying what his enemies were demanding with the TARP.
With the election of this anti-capitalist President our economy has plummeted with few businesses in their right mind expanding while our country is dismantled. The deficit has TRIPLED in 18 months under this increasingly Socialist Regime and the re-organization of our way of life in under way.
Business is pulling it's head into it's shell until this war on them is over.
Please wake up.


Now you are being silly....Barney did it. Right.

[Guest]

Richie....

I am really confused these tax cuts were enacted to encourage growth and create jobs. We should be able to agree, given the current situation they failed to do what they were supposed to do. What purpose do they have now? Let's forget about the last 8 years...lets just talk about the last year have these tax cuts helped to encourage growth or create jobs? I think not.

You can't have tax cuts and outrageous spending and expect the tax cuts to work. You must be fiscally responsible which means cut taxes and curb spending together. The government can't continue to spend the money generated by the tax cuts (and more) and expect things to pick up.

BK, wish I could make a point in so few words. :clap2:
CG; A good business plan makes plans for the future. When the tax cuts were put in place, businesses could plan on lower costs and expand, creating jobs for themselves and others, who supplied them. This DID happen. When major elections take place, a wait and see attitude prevails and they may put their plans on hold until things shake out. In the last 1 1/2 years, businesses have had to revise plans to take into account massive increases to the cost of doing business. Expansion, except where absolutely necessary, is the first to go. Next you cut costs by trimming fat and convenience. If none of that works, you go out of business. I believe one of the reasons the number of jobs lost may be declining is that we're running out of jobs we can lose.

[Guest]

Now you are being silly....Barney did it. Right.

CG I expect better than that from you. :jester:

[Guest]

Now you are being silly....Barney did it. Right.

You're finally putting together the pieces; I'm proud of you!!

[Guest]

You're finally putting together the pieces; I'm proud of you!!

:BigApplause: Too funny!!!

[Guest]

BK, wish I could make a point in so few words. :clap2:
CG; A good business plan makes plans for the future. When the tax cuts were put in place, businesses could plan on lower costs and expand, creating jobs for themselves and others, who supplied them. This DID happen. When major elections take place, a wait and see attitude prevails and they may put their plans on hold until things shake out. In the last 1 1/2 years, businesses have had to revise plans to take into account massive increases to the cost of doing business. Expansion, except where absolutely necessary, is the first to go. Next you cut costs by trimming fat and convenience. If none of that works, you go out of business. I believe one of the reasons the number of jobs lost may be declining is that we're running out of jobs we can lose.

Lets see.....when exactly were the tax cuts put in place....certainly not 1.5 years ago. Now I will bashed for this but what the heck this most likely is my last post on this forum cause its not worth my time anymore.

So the tax cuts went in and the Republican Congress went on spending spree which included 2 unfunded wars and 1 major expansion of the Medicare entitlement program. GW Bush NEVER vetoed a spending bill until the Dems got into power. And yet its all the Dems fault. If you believe Richie its Barney Franks fault....he caused all those failed mortgages. He personally bundled them up rated triple A, when they were junk and them sold...Making millions of profit for himself.

I have said repeatly there is enough blame to go around for this financial crisis but on this forum that seems not to be the case. You all have fun.

[Guest]

cologal, I think both parties need to learn fiscal restraint. I think there is plenty of blame to go around. Correct me if I'm wrong. But haven't the Democrats been in the majority since the 2006 general elections?

Democrats in both the House of Representatives and the Senate voted nearly unanimously for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists against "those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States" in Afghanistan in 2001, supporting the NATO coalition invasion of the nation.

Most Democrats holding office still support the Afghanistan conflict, and some, such as a Democratic National Committee spokesperson Tim Kaine, have said that the Iraq War shifted too many resources away from the presence in Afghanistan.

[Guest]

Lets see.....when exactly were the tax cuts put in place....certainly not 1.5 years ago. Now I will bashed for this but what the heck this most likely is my last post on this forum cause its not worth my time anymore.

So the tax cuts went in and the Republican Congress went on spending spree which included 2 unfunded wars and 1 major expansion of the Medicare entitlement program. GW Bush NEVER vetoed a spending bill until the Dems got into power. And yet its all the Dems fault. If you believe Richie its Barney Franks fault....he caused all those failed mortgages. He personally bundled them up rated triple A, when they were junk and them sold...Making millions of profit for himself.

I have said repeatly there is enough blame to go around for this financial crisis but on this forum that seems not to be the case. You all have fun.

Colagal,

This time I agree with you. The tax cuts did create jobs, however, Congress was able to spend faster than ever before. George Bush's failure to use the veto pen made the situation even worse. We should have learned from the Johnson presidency that you cannot have 'guns and butter'. Medicare part D is another unfunded program and should have never become law.

Today, the situation is getting worse. Spending has grown to the point where 40% of what the government spends is borrowed money.The military supplemental bill now contains more money in earmarks than is being provided to the military.

Europe is facing up to the fact that austerity by government is needed in order to provide for a future that keeps all of them from going the route of Greece. The United States, on the other hand, is still trying to spend its way out of debt. It didn't work in the thirties and won't work now.