PDA

View Full Version : GOP says "No". Why? "Just because".


Guest
09-14-2010, 02:15 PM
The Party of No has quickly silenced John Boehner after he said something which made common sense instead of spouting the pure party line. Now they are feverishly erecting roadblocks to extending the Bush tax cuts unless they continue the cuts for the wealthiest 2-3% of Americans.

The administration's tax-cut proposal will be a critical $300 billion shot in the arm for millions. The middle class folks who benefit will pump virtually every nickel back in to the domestic economy and actively move us further away from recession. Middle Americans are the people who will buy up the inventories which hopeful manufacturers have begun piling up since July at the highest levels in years. And as those inventories dry up, viola!, production and employment will continue to increase. The other critical component of the administration's plan proposes the most comprehensive tax credits to small businesses ever, with hefty writeoffs for those which expand and hire. This eliminates the concern about small businesses, family farms etc, being penalized by the tax cut ceiling limits. And finally, I submit, the 2-3% whose wallets will be tapped to help bring down the deficit will, in virtually every case, have their lifestyle affected to a negligible degree, or not at all. Will this mean they will decide to vacation in the Alps for only two months instead of three? Will they buy an Audi instead of a Bentley?

So then, for those of you who have been so worried about reducing the deficit, and believe that the administration is doing nothing to blunt the recession or reduce unemployment...What is wrong with exempting the wealthiest from the tax cuts and getting this legislation passed?

If you are going to give answers like these:

"It's discrimination against those who have worked so hard to reach their economic status"; or
"It will fail to stimulate corporate expansion and actually increase unemployment"; or
"it's just more of this damn Democratic socialism";

then may I respectfully request that you present real facts to justify your conclusions.

Guest
09-14-2010, 02:17 PM
vilification.

Guest
09-14-2010, 02:33 PM
Two quick questions.

How do the Republicans have the power to hold anything hostage or setup roadblocks?

Explain to me how raising taxes on anyone in the economic situation we are in now will help the economy.

Guest
09-14-2010, 02:47 PM
so stopping a scheduled tax increase qualifies as a tax cut for the wealthy? The middle class will have no additional money to spread around than they have now, they just won't have their taxes raised. At least not this time.

Guest
09-14-2010, 02:50 PM
The taxes on the "wealthiest" Americans include a very large number of Mom & Pop small businesses. It would be wrong to include them in this declining economy.

My second point is these are the people who hire the Middle and Lower class and with less money will hire less. Not a good scenario.

It's the same with the Health Care. With so much future uncertainty and with the prospect of escalating costs, businesses are holding their ground on employment and even laying off people in anticipation.

Guest
09-14-2010, 03:37 PM
Two quick questions.

How do the Republicans have the power to hold anything hostage or setup roadblocks?

Explain to me how raising taxes on anyone in the economic situation we are in now will help the economy.

1) The history of pending legislation since 2009 illustrates what I meant.
2) It seems obvious that raising some taxes is a partial means by which we can reduce the deficit. I am suggesting that taxes be raised in areas where it will have the least negative impact. Here's another example: raising the taxes on alcohol and tobacco products.

Now, do you care to answer my question?

Guest
09-14-2010, 03:41 PM
bk is right. The Republicans can't stop anything. If its such a wonderful idea then there shouldn't be a problem geetting all the Dems to vote for it.

Guest
09-14-2010, 03:47 PM
The taxes on the "wealthiest" Americans include a very large number of Mom & Pop small businesses. It would be wrong to include them in this declining economy.

My second point is these are the people who hire the Middle and Lower class and with less money will hire less. Not a good scenario.

It's the same with the Health Care. With so much future uncertainty and with the prospect of escalating costs, businesses are holding their ground on employment and even laying off people in anticipation.


You may have missed the second part of the tax relief plan I mentioned. I't's what WILL result in new hires and production.
I have not seen any facts supporting your statement that future uncertainty about health care significantly relates to businesses "holding their ground" and especially "even laying off people in anticipation". Can you give me any examples of where this has happened which collectively may have had some measurable effect on the US economy?

Guest
09-14-2010, 04:19 PM
Until defined and brackets from $x to $Y will pay _ _ _, etc
it is impossible to answer the question.
Wealth, has arbitrary definitions ranging from $75,000 to multi billions....a big difference.

As a result smal business owners who are not really "wealthy" can/will be affected. This is the area where it counts the most. This is the area that will not hire if they have to pay more taxes, etc.
Millionaires and billionaires have less impact on employment and they have the legal where withall to avoid any tax levied on them they so choose to avoid.

The small business owners are caught in the generalization of "wealthy".

That has to be sorted out to have any chance of success.

btk

Guest
09-14-2010, 04:30 PM
You may have missed the second part of the tax relief plan I mentioned. I't's what WILL result in new hires and production.
I have not seen any facts supporting your statement that future uncertainty about health care significantly relates to businesses "holding their ground" and especially "even laying off people in anticipation". Can you give me any examples of where this has happened which collectively may have had some measurable effect on the US economy?

This is a report from the National Federation of Independent Businesses. This is the group which just joined in the states' lawsuit against the Constitutionality of Obama's new healthcare reform.

http://www.nfib.com/Portals/0/PDF/sbet/sbet201009.pdf

Guest
09-14-2010, 04:58 PM
bk is right. The Republicans can't stop anything. If its such a wonderful idea then there shouldn't be a problem geetting all the Dems to vote for it.


I am also at a loss on this party of no thing. For the last 4 years actually the Dems have controlled congress and for the last 2 hard fast control. The Republicans can stop NOTHING WHATSOEVER !

Guest
09-14-2010, 05:00 PM
so stopping a scheduled tax increase qualifies as a tax cut for the wealthy? The middle class will have no additional money to spread around than they have now, they just won't have their taxes raised. At least not this time.


Excellent point.

Guest
09-14-2010, 05:46 PM
The administration's tax-cut proposal will be a critical $300 billion shot in the arm for millions. The middle class folks who benefit will pump virtually every nickel back in to the domestic economy and actively move us further away from recession.

Yes, just a little off there. There is NO tax cut proposal from the Democrats.

Guest
09-14-2010, 05:57 PM
You may have missed the second part of the tax relief plan I mentioned. I't's what WILL result in new hires and production.
I have not seen any facts supporting your statement that future uncertainty about health care significantly relates to businesses "holding their ground" and especially "even laying off people in anticipation". Can you give me any examples of where this has happened which collectively may have had some measurable effect on the US economy?

Measurable effect on the US economy? Would you look at it that way if it was your job?

http://blog.heritage.org/?p=29196

Guest
09-14-2010, 06:05 PM
ijusluvit said, "It seems obvious that raising some taxes is a partial means by which we can reduce the deficit."

In reality, higher taxes can't reduce the deficit. This from the Democrats at the hard left Brookings Institute.

What if we raised taxes only on families with couples making more than $250,000 a year and on individuals making more than $200,000? The top two income tax rates would have to more than double, with the top rate hitting almost 77 percent, to get the deficit down to 3 percent of GDP. Such dramatic tax increases are politically untenable and still wouldn’t come close to eliminating the deficit.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/uploadedpdf/1001438-tax-cuts-debate.pdf

Guest
09-14-2010, 08:28 PM
never, ever is their a Democrat that opposes any tax increase,

Guest
09-14-2010, 08:28 PM
Yes, just a little off there. There is NO tax cut proposal from the Democrats.

Helllooo. If the cuts expire, those who have them them now will lose them. They will then pay more taxes. To those earning less than $250k that translates to $300 billion. You can't twist reality around with words.

Guest
09-14-2010, 08:46 PM
This is a report from the National Federation of Independent Businesses. This is the group which just joined in the states' lawsuit against the Constitutionality of Obama's new healthcare reform.

http://www.nfib.com/Portals/0/PDF/sbet/sbet201009.pdf

Could you kindly direct me to the information in this lengthy report which supports your point about pending health care dampening future business expectations? I found several clear polls within the article which said the opposite and supported my position.

And by the way, in your reference, notice that twice as many of the small business owners expressed frustration with the inability to to get credit from January 2009 to the present than before that date. That's all about those greedy banks that have sat on excess funds instead of lending even to solid businesses. The new banking and credit regulations are not only necessary to save us from depression, but the government must do even more to compel banks to do their part. For hose who were bailed out by our money, their conduct is obscene.

Guest
09-14-2010, 09:16 PM
I'm sorry, I was reading through the website and I had several items opened from the organization. I copied and pasted the wrong report. If you don't want to read the entire report, you can read the executive summary which I believe starts on page 11.


http://www.nfib.com/Portals/0/PDF/AllUsers/HealthInsuranceReform3.2009.pdf

Guest
09-14-2010, 09:18 PM
I am also at a loss on this party of no thing. For the last 4 years actually the Dems have controlled congress and for the last 2 hard fast control. The Republicans can stop NOTHING WHATSOEVER !


I only implied this in my first post, but don't you think it's tragic, (not to mention irresponsible), that a whole party would continue to march to stubborn close minded positions, just because they have a specific party label, just because they don't want the opposing party to get credit for doing what needs to get done, and regardless of the outcome?
Don't you think it's wrong that if a congressman does break ranks these days, they risk ostracism and forfeit the millions they need for reelection?

And hey, you can apply what I just said to EITHER party!

So, Bucco, we come back to the question. Can you give me some solid reasons why the expiring tax cuts should be extended to those making more than $250k per year? (Tell you what. I'm even willing to adjust this figure upwards a teeny bit if we can get the thing done.)

Guest
09-14-2010, 09:28 PM
ijusluvit said, "It seems obvious that raising some taxes is a partial means by which we can reduce the deficit."

In reality, higher taxes can't reduce the deficit. This from the Democrats at the hard left Brookings Institute.

What if we raised taxes only on families with couples making more than $250,000 a year and on individuals making more than $200,000? The top two income tax rates would have to more than double, with the top rate hitting almost 77 percent, to get the deficit down to 3 percent of GDP. Such dramatic tax increases are politically untenable and still wouldn’t come close to eliminating the deficit.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/uploadedpdf/1001438-tax-cuts-debate.pdf

If the Brookings study is correct, I'll take the 68 billion per year in added tax revenues. As I said, it represents a partial deficit reduction. I think that's better than nothing.

I would still like to hear any solid reasons you have for extending the credits to those earning more than $250k per year.

Guest
09-14-2010, 09:41 PM
never, ever is their a Democrat that opposes any tax increase,

Your info about who pays taxes might be accurate, but those who pay the most don't seem to complain, nor are they desperate to escape to England or Cuba or some other place. Just ask folks like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates about what's fair payment for sustaining this great country.

I've been a Democrat at times and adamantly opposed some tax increases. At present though Sparky, I think we should admit we have a collective financial problem. The sooner we all contribute, (including through taxes), the sooner we may get out of this mess.

Guest
09-14-2010, 09:57 PM
I'm sorry, I was reading through the website and I had several items opened from the organization. I copied and pasted the wrong report. If you don't want to read the entire report, you can read the executive summary which I believe starts on page 11.


http://www.nfib.com/Portals/0/PDF/AllUsers/HealthInsuranceReform3.2009.pdf

I scanned this and cannot find anything which supports RLion's statement that health reform expectations are dampening business and employment prospects. I will cite the graphs on page 18 of your original report as some evidence of the exact opposite. Can you direct me to a page of the second, even longer report which is relevant to this issue?

I would still like to hear at least one solid reason why the expiring tax cut should be extended to those earning more than $250k annually

Guest
09-14-2010, 10:06 PM
The problem is spending, not revenues. There is no shortage of revenue. There has been a huge surge in entitlement spending. Spending has increased dramatically under Obama and his administration. Raising taxes to support this spending does not put the country on the right course for economic recovery or a substainable future.

We need a strong economy to increase revenues to support the federal coffers to cover downsized government spending at sustainable levels. Keeping the current tax policy is not a tax cut.

Raising taxes will provide a very, very modest boost to revenue and do nothing to offset the spending and entitlement problems the remaining working taxpayers are facing.

Raising taxes will slow the economy. Raising taxes on work and investment will mean less work and investment. True small businesses will be negatively impacted with the proposal to increase their taxes. That is something we can't afford in this country with the unemployment rate looming at near 10 percent.

The trillion dollar stimulus Obama passed didn't stimulate the economy like he promised and now he is playing cover-up and a blame game instead of admitting he was wrong. I can't see how increasing taxes on hard working Americans and entrepreneurs will help Americans get back to work or help the economy recover.

Guest
09-14-2010, 10:34 PM
Your info about who pays taxes might be accurate, but those who pay the most don't seem to complain, nor are they desperate to escape to England or Cuba or some other place. Just ask folks like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates about what's fair payment for sustaining this great country.

I've been a Democrat at times and adamantly opposed some tax increases. At present though Sparky, I think we should admit we have a collective financial problem. The sooner we all contribute, (including through taxes), the sooner we may get out of this mess.

I don't know if you represent a majority with your opinion "...The sooner we all contribute, (including through taxes), the sooner we may get out of this mess."

But let's assume that 50 percent of Americans agree with you and think it may be necessary to pay higher taxes. That would be about 115 million voting age Americans who agree with you.

If you would all give an average of just $181 a month per person, you would be giving the government $1 trillion in just four short years. You can start out the voluntary tax increase.

Now that would be patriotic and honorable and appreciated by me and the other 50 percent.

Guest
09-15-2010, 12:10 AM
You may have missed the second part of the tax relief plan I mentioned. I't's what WILL result in new hires and production.
I have not seen any facts supporting your statement that future uncertainty about health care significantly relates to businesses "holding their ground" and especially "even laying off people in anticipation". Can you give me any examples of where this has happened which collectively may have had some measurable effect on the US economy?

I cannot any more than Obama can point to specific jobs created at a reasonable cost. He can point, however, to the fact that his stimulus plan has failed to stimulate the economy. The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expect different results. Let's try something that has a proven success record - lowering taxes and getting government out of the workplace. Stimulus has failed.

Guest
09-15-2010, 06:02 AM
corporations both domestic and foreign who pay no taxes or have provisions for significantly reduced payment.

The subject comes up, very quietly from time to time and goes away just as quietly.

The incentives or loop holes that have been the justification should be reviewed and changed to fit the current economic environment. There would definitely be a contribution to revenues. There would be horrific howling and knashing of teeth by the lobbyists and corporate special interest groups.

Just another area to shine the light of looking for money that seems to be all but ignored.

What ever the amount that could be gained would not off set the spending.
Why is taxation always front and center and spending is not only not discussed, it continues (by both parties) without a single solitary thought on the part of the politicians.
And of course condoned by we the people's un-informed or mis-informed position on spending.

When trying to maintain a household or to recover profitability in any sized business when increased revenues are not a solution they respond by going after spending. We all do it. Why? Because we have no other choice.

Politicians just "charge it" to their unlimited funds/who cares cards or print more money. Now why is that allowed/tolerated? The results from reduced spending are instantaneous. Yet is never pursued. Like stepping over the dollar to pick up a dime.

btk

Guest
09-15-2010, 06:06 AM
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1249465620080812

btk

Guest
09-15-2010, 08:00 AM
Ok, I have to chime in here with something that seems to have been ignored..

One of the arguments against letting the taxes increase 'for the rich' (and, for the record, I hate that term) is that it will hurt "mom and pop businesses".

This is framed in such a wrong manner it's ridiculous.

We're talking about a tax rate increase from 34% to 37%, if I read my number right. On top of that, it would be ON THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS.

That mean that the "mom and pop" business has to be CLEARING over $250,000. Those are NOT "struggling" businesses.

In addition, the extra 3% tax is on the AMOUNT OVER $250K. So if "mom and pop" are clearing JUST $250K, they see no tax increase. If they clear $500K, they see an increase in their taxes of $7,500 (going from $85,000 in taxes on that extra $250K up to $92,500) - the 3% of the extra $250K.

If "mom and pop" are clearing NOTHING - and remember that expenses include PAYING THEMSELVES SALARIES then the business isn't paying taxes on any profit and "mom and pop" are just paying taxes on their salaries.

Now, personally, I'm more in favor of fairer, flatter taxes but can we at least use more facts in the debate?

Guest
09-15-2010, 04:20 PM
I cannot any more than Obama can point to specific jobs created at a reasonable cost. He can point, however, to the fact that his stimulus plan has failed to stimulate the economy. The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expect different results. Let's try something that has a proven success record - lowering taxes and getting government out of the workplace. Stimulus has failed.

Even though you are not making any attempt to answer my question, I will respond to your enormous generalizations about the stimulus program.

They are completely wrong.

There is ample evidence that the stimulus was essential to prevent what likely would have been the worst depression in history, the failure of hundreds of blue-chip businesses, the resultant market crash that would have made 1929 look puny and unemployment triple or more than what it was last year. No, not everyone is back to work magically in 18 months. That would be impossible. But you would be denying reality if you did not recognize the gains made in the face of our worst crisis in history. All this is due largely to the stimulus plan (and new financial regulations). No, it's not the ideal situation to have the current deficit, but the actions taken were ESSENTIAL!!

Guest
09-15-2010, 04:36 PM
The problem is spending, not revenues. There is no shortage of revenue. There has been a huge surge in entitlement spending. Spending has increased dramatically under Obama and his administration. Raising taxes to support this spending does not put the country on the right course for economic recovery or a substainable future.

We need a strong economy to increase revenues to support the federal coffers to cover downsized government spending at sustainable levels. Keeping the current tax policy is not a tax cut.

Raising taxes will provide a very, very modest boost to revenue and do nothing to offset the spending and entitlement problems the remaining working taxpayers are facing.

Raising taxes will slow the economy. Raising taxes on work and investment will mean less work and investment. True small businesses will be negatively impacted with the proposal to increase their taxes. That is something we can't afford in this country with the unemployment rate looming at near 10 percent.

The trillion dollar stimulus Obama passed didn't stimulate the economy like he promised and now he is playing cover-up and a blame game instead of admitting he was wrong. I can't see how increasing taxes on hard working Americans and entrepreneurs will help Americans get back to work or help the economy recover.

It is disappointing that you have not yet responded to my question about allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for those earning more than 250K per year.
I spent a lot of time studying the two lengthy pieces you sent me, responded that they did not show evidence of your points, and you haven't commented about that either.

In this post you have now changed the subject to spending. Within it you are making some huge generalizations (like BBQman, who also got off topic). I refer you to my answer to him about those stimulus plan generalizations.

And finally, in your next post you spent a bunch of space creating a 'make fun' scenario of my suggestion that we all need to contribute, (work together) to get out of this mess. If you are going to do that, I'd prefer you did it by PM rather than publicly.

Once again, I'd like to see even one solid reason why you disagree with my original question.

Guest
09-15-2010, 05:09 PM
What is wrong with exempting the wealthiest from the tax cuts and getting this legislation passed?

I don't know how many ways to say it to make you understand what I'm saying. I'll try one more time.

I don't like to see anyone pay one penny of their money to the government in tax dollars that are wasted.

I don't think taking more of anyone's money and giving it to this reckless government will get us back on the right track.

We need to get our spending under control first and foremost. I don't think the solution is "getting this bill passed." I think the solution is getting the economy moving again and taking more money from someone isn't going to get the economy moving again.

The number one reason I don't think it is right to take money from one select group of people is because I don't like this class warfare game that is being played by Obama.

Guest
09-15-2010, 05:37 PM
Even though you are not making any attempt to answer my question, I will respond to your enormous generalizations about the stimulus program.

They are completely wrong.

There is ample evidence that the stimulus was essential to prevent what likely would have been the worst depression in history, the failure of hundreds of blue-chip businesses, the resultant market crash that would have made 1929 look puny and unemployment triple or more than what it was last year. No, not everyone is back to work magically in 18 months. That would be impossible. But you would be denying reality if you did not recognize the gains made in the face of our worst crisis in history. All this is due largely to the stimulus plan (and new financial regulations). No, it's not the ideal situation to have the current deficit, but the actions taken were ESSENTIAL!!

This is another assertion that the stimulus program addressed the bank credit crisis. It did not. In another thread, I addressed a similar assertion that confused the successful TARP program with the stimulus program. Here is what I posted in reply to this assertion:

"The troubled asset relief program (TARP) addressed a liquidity crisis in the banking system that required immediate large sums be lent to a number of banks. This crisis had been caused by the 'mortgage for everyone' debacle driven by Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac policies. We can argue forever about who did what, but that gets us nowhere.

TARP was put into place during the last three months of the Bush administration. This was done in full consultation with Obama's team and the leaders of Congress. Approximately half of the appropriated funds were used by the Bush administration with the balance left to the Obama administration. TARP did what it was intended to do and stabled the banking and credit system. This was intended to be a program in which the government would receive repayment with interest of the amounts provided. This has been happening and continues to go forth. This was accomplished through a bipartisan effort that should have been the example for what came after.

Unfortunately, this did not happen. The stimulus bill had nothing to do with the banking crisis or the recovery from it. The stimulus bill was far from being a bipartisan approach. Republicans were not consulted as the bill was drafted behind closed doors with no one from either the press or the Republicans present. No news organization,members of the public or member of Congress were given the opportunity to even read the bill, much less provide input before it was put to a vote. This rush was justified by the promise that if the stimulus bill was passed, unemployment would never rise above 8%.

The truth here is that TARP, drafted and administered in a bipartisan manner worked and did prevent a banking and liquidity crisis that could have thrown the US and the rest of the world into a serious recession or even a depression. This action was led by the Bush administration.

The stimulus program was a totally partisan program rammed through by the Obama administration. It has cost approximately one trillion dollars to date and has failed miserably in its intended objectives."

Differentiating between TARP and the stimulus program is essential to understanding what is happening in the US economy today. Once that is understood then we need to come to grips with the fact that cutting government spending not increasing it is the key to economic growth.

Guest
09-15-2010, 09:30 PM
BBQman,

I made no reference to TARP.

My views of the benefits of the stimulus spending are as stated. My parenthetical reference to financial regulations referred to the 'strings' attached to stimulus spending, which I think helped make those expenditures more effective.

ps: I like TARP too!

Guest
09-15-2010, 10:22 PM
What is wrong with exempting the wealthiest from the tax cuts and getting this legislation passed?

I don't know how many ways to say it to make you understand what I'm saying. I'll try one more time.

I don't like to see anyone pay one penny of their money to the government in tax dollars that are wasted.

I don't think taking more of anyone's money and giving it to this reckless government will get us back on the right track.

We need to get our spending under control first and foremost. I don't think the solution is "getting this bill passed." I think the solution is getting the economy moving again and taking more money from someone isn't going to get the economy moving again.

The number one reason I don't think it is right to take money from one select group of people is because I don't like this class warfare game that is being played by Obama.

I agree that pennies are wasted and that shouldn't be. But it's going to happen in an imperfect world and we STILL MUST PAY to have a stable government which protects it's citizens and their opportunity to lead productive, peaceful lives.

We have been "taking peoples' money" for over 200 years. We have ALWAYS had some "ability to pay" differentiation in the tax structure. I'm staying in that context, and just asking if this new wrinkle (expiring credits for 250k's) is a good idea or not.

And forgive me, but I look at statements like "class warfare", and "reckless government" as emotional rather than factual descriptions of our situation. If there is any substance to those descriptors, lay out the facts.

In my view, two hundred years of some form of "ability to pay" nullifies the "class warfare" idea. And there are literally millions of us out there who are relieved that instead of being "reckless", government intervention has provided a job, kept our mutual fund from becoming worthless, stopped some planned terrorist attacks on domestic targets, made BP put 20 billion in the bank, etc., etc.

OK, let's end this. I'll assume that most folks here are finally willing to admit it's not horrific to allow the tax credits for $250K earners to expire.

But you've suggested an interesting next question: Since eighty thousand is a pretty good sample, can you find ANYONE in TV whose life has been negatively changed to a significant degree by action of the reckless Obama administration?

Guest
09-15-2010, 10:44 PM
I agree that pennies are wasted and that shouldn't be. But it's going to happen in an imperfect world and we STILL MUST PAY to have a stable government which protects it's citizens and their opportunity to lead productive, peaceful lives.

We have been "taking peoples' money" for over 200 years. We have ALWAYS had some "ability to pay" differentiation in the tax structure. I'm staying in that context, and just asking if this new wrinkle (expiring credits for 250k's) is a good idea or not.

And forgive me, but I look at statements like "class warfare", and "reckless government" as emotional rather than factual descriptions of our situation. If there is any substance to those descriptors, lay out the facts.

In my view, two hundred years of some form of "ability to pay" nullifies the "class warfare" idea. And there are literally millions of us out there who are relieved that instead of being "reckless", government intervention has provided a job, kept our mutual fund from becoming worthless, stopped some planned terrorist attacks on domestic targets, made BP put 20 billion in the bank, etc., etc.

OK, let's end this. I'll assume that most folks here are finally willing to admit it's not horrific to allow the tax credits for $250K earners to expire.

But you've suggested an interesting next question: Since eighty thousand is a pretty good sample, can you find ANYONE in TV whose life has been negatively changed to a significant degree by action of the reckless Obama administration?


Pennies are wasted? I would hope you are using hyperbole here.

Show me with historical facts and links to back it up that "We have been 'taking peoples' money' for over 200 years."

Guest
09-16-2010, 05:34 AM
You folks are having a good discussion and I noticed this in this morning's WSJ and just inject it into the discussion...

It's the Spending, Stupid

I'm convinced that beneath all the economic turbulence in the land is anxiety that's been building for years as public spending has continued to grow. What was a chronic "concern" has exploded this year into a broad public movement—in Washington, California, New York, New Jersey and indeed across Europe. This isn't "concern," Mr. President. It's a crisis.

In the article, the President is quoted as talking about how he understands the feelings of the voters and said...

""They saw the Recovery Act," he said. "They saw TARP. They saw the auto bailout. And they look at these and think, 'God, all these huge numbers adding up.' So they're right to be concerned about that."

The writer adds this to the President's statement...


"And the president didn't mention the two $3 trillion-plus budgets passed on his watch or the trillion-dollar health-care entitlement. They, the voters, are not "concerned" about Uncle Sam's spending floating toward the moon. They are enraged, furious, crazed and desperate.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703743504575493953591176476.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Isolating just one thing is not sufficient for this discussion. It is the path we are on !

Guest
09-16-2010, 09:29 AM
The federal government is spending more than it takes in.
It is reported they have to borrow 40 of every dollar of new spending.

Spending is....has been....and always will be the problem when more is spent than one has. Whether it be the government or big or small business or your or my check book.

There is only one exception to the profit and loss equation....the federal government spends what it does not have without penalty. They have an open ended credit line. And when all else fails they print more money.

Spending cannot be allowed to surpass income....it is just that simple.

btk

Guest
09-16-2010, 10:02 AM
When I read your answer Billy, I see it as a response to the posted question, "What is wrong with exempting the wealthiest from the tax cuts and getting this legislation passed?"

I understand that we all don't think the same way. It was something I pointed out to Villages Kahuna on a discussion that kept going around and around when he couldn't see the answers that were being given. It is that right brain, left brain thing I suppose.

Sometimes I believe it happens, and I am just as guilty as anyone, when we are so set to prove a point and/or to get an expected answer that we don't think outside a particular word.

I read an excellent column by Thomas Sowell, "The Danger of Catchwords." If you shutdown your thinking because a certain word is said or isn't said, like TARP or stimulus or tax cut or tax increase; well as Sowell points out in his coulumn, in the words of philosopher Thomas Hobbes: words are wise men’s counters but they are the money of fools.

Part 1: http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2010/09/14/the_money_of_fools

Part 2: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/246544/danger-catchwords-thomas-sowell

Part 3: http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2010/09/16/the_money_of_fools_part_iii

Guest
09-16-2010, 01:56 PM
To bk and bucco,

Yes, this has been a good discussion. As I said in my last post, I am now satisfied that there isn't any good reason to allow the tax cuts to expire for the 250k ers.
Dplong did a good job correcting the misconception that small businesses would be hurt, and none of the other fears expressed in the media or by opponents has any real substance.

So, as I also said, let's put this to rest.

About all that spending: If you read my reply to BBQman you will see my view that while I am not happy about the large deficit, I consider it an absolutely essential step to avert the real catastrophe which would have occurred if the government did nothing. The repair did start with TARP in Bush's final days, but the stimulus program has been just as critical.

As I have also said, there is ample evidence, especially in the last 60 days, with unemployment data and production and inventory figures, that the stimulus has flattened out the recession and real gains are being made.

As many alarmists and media attention seekers as there are telling us that "the sky is falling", and that the "end is near" (or here), there are those who study this period, compare it to our history and conclude that we can and will fully recover economically in a relatively short period of time. I consider "short" to mean that I will live to see it.

I believe I will live to see recovery. And really it comes down to what you believe. Hopefully, if you don't believe we will recover, you formed those opinions on the basis of sound study and information rather than sound bites, long-time political preferences with their sweeping generalizations.

So for those of you who oppose, as bk calls it, the "reckless" Obama administration, I will again ask my new question:

Do you know any single person who lives in TV who has suffered any significant financial loss as a direct result of the administration's actions to date?

Guest
09-16-2010, 02:16 PM
Looks like the Democrats see the writing on the wall and are leaving Obama's tax increase plan in droves. Where do I get this news? From some right wing news source? How about CNN.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/15/more-democrats-break-with-obama-on-tax-cuts/