What Is Going On Here?

[Guest]

I thought the fracture between the Democrats and Republicans was serious. Now it looks like the Republicans don't even get along with other Republicans. Not that Eric Cantor "works for" John Boehner in a business sense, but if you were Cantor's boss and he hung you out to dry like this, how long would he be working for you?

This is the GOP that's going to mount an effective campaign to take back the White House in 2012? Sometime really soon this team better all start playing from the same playbook, or the idea of displacing President Obama will become an increasingly laughable idea.

Read this article from The Daily Beast...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/06/23/eric-cantor-departure-from-biden-budget-sessions-prompted-by-obama-boehner-talks.html?om_rid=NsfsBA&om_mid=_BOBIlAB8cDbthu

[Guest]

I agree

[Guest]

It was better under the Nancy Pelosi dictatorship style of consensus? It doesn't bother me when ideals trump some sort of mandatory party consensus. I, myself, have had quite enough of "my way or the highway" negotiations.

Principled leaders instead of robots and yes-men. I'm OK with that. I'll just leave the ranting to others on this one.

[Guest]

Village Kahuna seems to have come to the light as well as Rubicon. Welcome to the light and away from the Dark Side.

The side of Light is growing each day, Richie. You may still be in the twilight zone but you see our side and are inching closer with each posting such as being an advocate of both legalizing marijuana and of gay marriage.

[Guest]

Village Kahuna seems to have come to the light as well as Rubicon. Welcome to the light and away from the Dark Side.

The side of Light is growing each day, Richie. You may still be in the twilight zone but you see our side and are inching closer with each posting such as being an advocate of both legalizing marijuana and of gay marriage.

You're killing me Bugs, you're killing me.

[Guest]

...It doesn't bother me when ideals trump some sort of mandatory party consensus. I, myself, have had quite enough of "my way or the highway" negotiations.

Principled leaders instead of robots and yes-men. I'm OK with that....But who was it that declared "my way or the highway" in these negotiations? Yes, there were major disagreements between the Vice President and Cantor. But only one is still sitting at the table. The other closed off any further negotiations, took his ball and left the game. Is that what you mean when you say "ideals trump party consensus"? Is that what any of us mean or desire when we elect people who we expect to get something done for the good of the country? It sounds to me like, while you say you don't like totally confrontational and unyielding negotiations, in fact that's what you really do like.

Not me. I've never been in a successful negotiation yet where one party walked away from the table.

[Guest]

But who was it that declared "my way or the highway" in these negotiations? Yes, there were major disagreements between the Vice President and Cantor. But only one is still sitting at the table. The other closed off any further negotiations, took his ball and left the game. Is that what you mean when you say "ideals trump party consensus"? Is that what any of us mean or desire when we elect people who we expect to get something done for the good of the country? It sounds to me like, while you say you don't like totally confrontational and unyielding negotiations, in fact that's what you really do like.

Not me. I've never been in a successful negotiation yet where one party walked away from the table.

Cantor was there to discuss spending cuts. The VP won't discuss spending cuts without tax increases. Cantor says "no way, not gonna happen, we're only discussing spending cuts". Biden stands firm figuring the Republicans crack under the pressure, as usual. Cantor walks away and says, "call me when you're serious about spending cuts, and we'll continue".

Sounds principled to me. Why should Cantor allow himself to be bullied?

[Guest]

they should be there to discuss both.This is childish,nonsense behavior that helps no one and hurts any ability for our country to recover. Cantor and the rest of the repubs know that there can be no recovery with only tax cuts,it's not possible. It sounds good"we will not raise taxes" but it is pure hog wash and they know it. Their political nonsense is threatening this country and the people like you that support their voodoo economics are just as much to blame. I ask this question over and over and never get an answer....Why are you so opposed to repealing the Bush tax cuts. They did not work. They did not do what they were supposed to do. The rich are not investing,they are not creating jobs with the extra money. They are spending it on themselves and their families.

[Guest]

I see that QE1 and QE2, plus the two stimlus packages really did a great job also. Where are all the jobs promised, why are prices going up and the dollar dumping into the toilet? I see that neither party really wants to work for the country, they only what to work for those that have bought and paid for them. What we need is a good recall program and start all over again with new faces. Then if they don't work together, recall and start over again. Pretty soon if nothing is done we won't have to worry about our country it will be owned by someone else, like maybe China.

[Guest]

Village Kahuna seems to have come to the light as well as Rubicon. Welcome to the light and away from the Dark Side.

The side of Light is growing each day, Richie. You may still be in the twilight zone but you see our side and are inching closer with each posting such as being an advocate of both legalizing marijuana and of gay marriage.

:agree: Are some heads going to explode now that the gay marriage rights passed in NY?

[Guest]

they should be there to discuss both.This is childish,nonsense behavior that helps no one and hurts any ability for our country to recover. Cantor and the rest of the repubs know that there can be no recovery with only tax cuts,it's not possible. It sounds good"we will not raise taxes" but it is pure hog wash and they know it. Their political nonsense is threatening this country and the people like you that support their voodoo economics are just as much to blame. I ask this question over and over and never get an answer....Why are you so opposed to repealing the Bush tax cuts. They did not work. They did not do what they were supposed to do. The rich are not investing,they are not creating jobs with the extra money. They are spending it on themselves and their families.

I have been trying to figure that out as well....if all those kind and generous and community minded rich folk were creating jobs with all the money they have saved in tax cuts we would not be where we are. It would not kill those 1% of the richest of the rich to give a little more...

[Guest]

I have been trying to figure that out as well....if all those kind and generous and community minded rich folk were creating jobs with all the money they have saved in tax cuts we would not be where we are. It would not kill those 1% of the richest of the rich to give a little more...

You could tax the 1% a 100% and it wouldn't help. It would only make you feel good. We need solutions that don't hurt the producers.

[Guest]

You could tax the 1% a 100% and it wouldn't help. It would only make you feel good. We need solutions that don't hurt the producers.

Richie, my dear, you are so darn predictable!

[Guest]

You could tax the 1% a 100% and it wouldn't help. It would only make you feel good. We need solutions that don't hurt the producers.

In fairness to a legitimate debate, of course it wouldn't help if you taxed the 1% at 100%. The question is whether it would help the deficit without hurting job growth if a "temporary" tax cut were lifted, along with serious budget cuts. I'm not saying it would, just trying to keep the discussion kind of real, fwiw.

[Guest]

Richie, my dear, you are so darn predictable!

Thank you. I know you mean predictable because of my outstanding record of always being correct. Again, I thank you.

[Guest]

In fairness to a legitimate debate, of course it wouldn't help if you taxed the 1% at 100%. The question is whether it would help the deficit without hurting job growth if a "temporary" tax cut were lifted, along with serious budget cuts. I'm not saying it would, just trying to keep the discussion kind of real, fwiw.

You really believe that the deficit might be drawn down if the few people of 1% gave a little more, even in light of the fact that if they gave 100% it would have little effect? What am I missing other than the demagoguery.

[Guest]

I suspect many on this thread have had training and/or experience in the art of negotiating. One important rule is that you are willing to walk away from the deal I won't recite the number of cases that this tactic provided me with a win.

So when I agreed with VK original post it was because I agreed that Republicans cannot be divided and not because they walked away from the deal. A deal will get done and when it does both sides will believe they gave up too much.

As for passage of gay rights in NY...........No matter what side you take it is going to be a loser

[Guest]

Thank you. I know you mean predictable because of my outstanding record of always being correct. Again, I thank you.

You are always good for a laugh!

[Guest]

yes taxing them at pre-Bush rates would help and what exactly do they produce and please do not give me the company line of jobs,we know that is pure fantasy.

[Guest]

You really believe that the deficit might be drawn down if the few people of 1% gave a little more, even in light of the fact that if they gave 100% it would have little effect? What am I missing other than the demagoguery.

Hi Richie,
I'm not sure I understand your question. For the U.S. (i.e., us) to avoid defaulting on our obligations, it might take everyone sacrificing something.

If you are asking me if sacrificing something could help, even if sacrificing everything would be counter-productive, yes, I think so. See: "law of diminishing returns," the principles of taking something to its logical extreme and "reductio ad absurdum" (reduced to the absurd).

[Guest]

Hi Richie,
I'm not sure I understand your question. For the U.S. (i.e., us) to avoid defaulting on our obligations, it might take everyone sacrificing something.

If you are asking me if sacrificing something could help, even if sacrificing everything would be counter-productive, yes, I think so. See: "law of diminishing returns," the principles of taking something to its logical extreme and "reductio ad absurdum" (reduced to the absurd).

The point is that what this country needs to do is stop spending. Repeat; what this country needs to do is stop spending.

Ever hear the one that when you stuck in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging. Of course you have.

Taking more of a share of the money from the people who are already paying the lion's share of everythings only purpose is for the morale of the majority. In other words, it's the class envy thing.

Waynet doesn't want to hear that the producers drive the economy and create the theatre for employment, so I guess I can't say that again, although it's irrefutable.

What this country needs to do is to stop spending and cut taxes. Oh No, did I just say that? Let me say it again; we need to stop spending and cut taxes, especially business taxes and capital gains taxes. You want to spur growth and business activity? Or do you just want to make the bastards who have more than you pay?

[Guest]

Richie, you asked if we just wanted to take more of a share of the money from the people who are already paying the lion's share of everythings. Close the tax loopholes for the very rich. Giant corporations not paying a cent of income tax is ridiculous. These very rich are NOT paying the lion's share of everything. It is actually the upper middle class who are paying the lion's share. Probably most of us in The Villages are in this very class who are paying the lion's share of taxes. Your withheld Federal taxes from your pension - even though you may get a refund of some at the the end of the year - are more than what some American corporations have paid at the same time they have record profits.

I would love to have that kind of a sweetheart deal. I would love to make billions of dollars and pay no taxes on it.

The only fair thing to do is to increase taxes on the very richest people and corporations. You will say the same old thing about sharing the wealth but that is crap. Do you personally feel it is right for a billion dollar profit making corporation to pay less tax than you? I do not.

[Guest]

Richie, you asked if we just wanted to take more of a share of the money from the people who are already paying the lion's share of everythings. Close the tax loopholes for the very rich. Giant corporations not paying a cent of income tax is ridiculous. These very rich are NOT paying the lion's share of everything. It is actually the upper middle class who are paying the lion's share. Probably most of us in The Villages are in this very class who are paying the lion's share of taxes. Your withheld Federal taxes from your pension - even though you may get a refund of some at the the end of the year - are more than what some American corporations have paid at the same time they have record profits.

I would love to have that kind of a sweetheart deal. I would love to make billions of dollars and pay no taxes on it.

The only fair thing to do is to increase taxes on the very richest people and corporations. You will say the same old thing about sharing the wealth but that is crap. Do you personally feel it is right for a billion dollar profit making corporation to pay less tax than you? I do not.

You're not as valuable. Sorry. And the subject wasn't tax loopholes. It was personal taxes that the previous poster wanted raised on the people who make more than her. It's like I said previously "If you take from Peter to pay Paul, you can count on the vote of Paul".

[Guest]

Richie, you asked if we just wanted to take more of a share of the money from the people who are already paying the lion's share of everythings. Close the tax loopholes for the very rich. Giant corporations not paying a cent of income tax is ridiculous. These very rich are NOT paying the lion's share of everything. It is actually the upper middle class who are paying the lion's share. Probably most of us in The Villages are in this very class who are paying the lion's share of taxes. Your withheld Federal taxes from your pension - even though you may get a refund of some at the the end of the year - are more than what some American corporations have paid at the same time they have record profits.

I would love to have that kind of a sweetheart deal. I would love to make billions of dollars and pay no taxes on it.

The only fair thing to do is to increase taxes on the very richest people and corporations. You will say the same old thing about sharing the wealth but that is crap. Do you personally feel it is right for a billion dollar profit making corporation to pay less tax than you? I do not.

Increasing taxes on corporations has always a favorite idea of the populists who wish to find someone or something to blame. Corporations have an obligation to their shareholders, their employees and the countries/communities in which they operate. If they fail to fulfill these obligations, they go out of business and everyone loses.

Here is a link to Exxon/Mobil's annual report. I encourage everyone to peruse it. You will find that EM had approximately 32 billion in after tax earnings and invested a similar amount in new exploration, field development and capital acquisitions/improvements.

http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Files/news_pubs_sar_2010.pdf

They spent more than one billion dollars on r&d which has yielded significant increases in fuel efficiency, lower emissions and new sources of energy. The proven energy reserves increased by 211%, providing us with greater energy security in the future. Between income taxes, property taxes, gasoline taxes, etc. Exxon/Mobil pays more in taxes than it has in earnings.

Does anyone seriously think that by increasing Exxon/Mobil taxes the result will be anything other than an increase in prices and/or a decrease in Capital expenditures, new field development, r&d, etc? Exxon/Mobil must meet the needs of all of its stakeholder throughout the world and not just those of the US government. Can anyone conceive that the monies will be as efficiently and productively spent by our government as they are presently being spent by Exxon/Mobil? Perhaps we want them to move their corporate headquarters and the resultant overall corporate tax base along with their overall focus out of the US?

For those of you who are curious, I have no interest either directly or indirectly in EM. A similar argument can be made for virtually any major US based corporation. As an example, I suggest Boeing. If our government succeeds in preventing them from opening their plant in South Carolin do you think it is more likely they will open the plant in Washington State or China? If the United States will not work with Boeing in meeting the competition from Air Bus, then there are a number of countries who have the industrial base and the will to do so.

[Guest]

BBQMan, I do appreciate your tone and verbage when you disagree with me. Your answer was articulate and gave good reasoning.

I have heard and seen all of these corporate reasons before about why taxes on them should not be raised. The main one that always comes out is that if they have to pay more taxes, prices to the consumer will be raised. Since their corporate profits have to be shown to their shareholders, this is probably true. Corporations like EM also state they spend almost all their profits in new explorations and in R&D. Again, maybe true. This is a form of corporate blackmail, in my opinion.

Also, look at the executives at the high levels and how much money they earn both in salary and bonus money. How about higher taxes on them?

[Guest]

my final thought on this thread....the current Repubs would rather destroy the U.S. economy than sacrifice one little piece of their ideological purity. They,not Obama, are the real threat to the stability of our country. The leadership and Cantor is a perfect example is shallow,cowardly and really a bunch of liars. Rich,your only response to various ideas has been to stop spending. Without raising revenues stopping spending alone cannot work. The idea that no revenue can be raised is crazy.

[Guest]

my final thought on this thread....the current Repubs would rather destroy the U.S. economy than sacrifice one little piece of their ideological purity. They,not Obama, are the real threat to the stability of our country. The leadership and Cantor is a perfect example is shallow,cowardly and really a bunch of liars. Rich,your only response to various ideas has been to stop spending. Without raising revenues stopping spending alone cannot work. The idea that no revenue can be raised is crazy.

Stop spending, cut taxes and especially capital gains taxes, and enjoy the spurt of business activity with the inevitable rise is government revenue. Worked before, would work again. When you just take money from the producers you stall business activity, and you can see how well that is working.

Stop spending, cutting all non-essential, non-strategic programs to the bone, will slow down our increasing by the hour debt, enabling the introduction of my proposed tax cuts which will spur economic growth and get us off this slide into progressive economic oblivion. Not very hard to understand.

[Guest]

BBQMan, I do appreciate your tone and verbage when you disagree with me. Your answer was articulate and gave good reasoning.

I have heard and seen all of these corporate reasons before about why taxes on them should not be raised. The main one that always comes out is that if they have to pay more taxes, prices to the consumer will be raised. Since their corporate profits have to be shown to their shareholders, this is probably true. Corporations like EM also state they spend almost all their profits in new explorations and in R&D. Again, maybe true. This is a form of corporate blackmail, in my opinion.

Also, look at the executives at the high levels and how much money they earn both in salary and bonus money. How about higher taxes on them?

Bugs, I still feel that raising corporate taxes is the wrong way to go. Energy companies have and will continue to spend money wisely to deliver cost effective energy to the public. Our government does not. The horrendous waste in corn ethanol subsidies, electric golf cart subsidies, electric automobile subsidies, solar subsidies, etc. have drained this country of billions and done nothing to reduce our dependence on imported oil. If anything, they have increased it. Why would anyone believe that transferring say 8 billion dollars from EM where it is being effectively to increase energy reserves and energy efficiency to the Federal government where it can be spent on one more pet project such as 'green' energy that will yield anything of benefit?

Individual taxes are another matter. I do not favor increasing them with the present tax code. Intelligent people with capable tax advisors will wind up paying no more while people in the Villages, who do not have these resources, will wind up paying more.

All deductions that do not relate to catastrophic conditions (medical expenses above a certain percentage of income, flood and fire damage, etc) should be eliminated. The government needs to get out of the behavior shaping behavior. For example, the mortgage interest deduction, the charitable giving deduction, etc. It is not the government's role to decide how I spend my money. If I choose to live in an apartment rather than a house, why should the government get involved? If I want to give my money to the dancers at the local strip club rather than the church down the block, what business is that of our government?

I still agree with Thomas Paine when he wrote, "That government is best which governs least."

[Guest]

...They spent more than one billion dollars on r&d which has yielded significant increases in fuel efficiency, lower emissions and new sources of energy....A billion dollars sounds like a whole lot of money, BBQMan. But let's put Exxon Mobil's "generous" investment in research and development into some perspective.

Exxon Mobil had 2011 revenues of over $370 billion. They spent slightly over $1 billion for R&D. That's about 2/10 of one percent for R&D. They paid their shareholders more than eight times that amount in dividends. They paid executive bonuses almost as much as they invested in R&D. The gave an outgoing CEO a "golden handshake" retirement deal worth almost half of what they spent on R&D in 2010.

Forgive me, BBQMan if I'm not the least bit impressed. Your statement on how wonderful the results of their R&D spending has been indicates pretty clearly that you've been drinking deeply of the Exxon Mobil Kool-Aid.

[Guest]

A billion dollars sounds like a whole lot of money, BBQMan. But let's put Exxon Mobil's "generous" investment in research and development into some perspective.

Exxon Mobil had 2011 revenues of over $370 billion. They spent slightly over $1 billion for R&D. That's about 2/10 of one percent for R&D. They paid their shareholders more than eight times that amount in dividends. They paid executive bonuses almost as much as they invested in R&D. The gave an outgoing CEO a "golden handshake" retirement deal worth almost half of what they spent on R&D in 2010.

Forgive me, BBQMan if I'm not the least bit impressed. Your statement on how wonderful the results of their R&D spending has been indicates pretty clearly that you've been drinking deeply of the Exxon Mobil Kool-Aid.

You 'conveniently' choose not to notice the 32 Billion spent on new field development and capital upgrades, an amount four times what was distributed to the stockholders. You also dodge the key question of whether EM or the US Government is more effective in achieving a rational and sustainable energy policy.

With your thinking this confused, it's obvious you haven't been drinking kool-aid, but more likely dreaming along on LSD.

[Guest]

unbelievable...we are defending Exxon Mobil a company that makes billions yet still recieves subsidies in the multi-millions.

[Guest]

Stop spending, cut taxes and especially capital gains taxes, and enjoy the spurt of business activity with the inevitable rise is government revenue. Worked before, would work again. When you just take money from the producers you stall business activity, and you can see how well that is working.

Stop spending, cutting all non-essential, non-strategic programs to the bone, will slow down our increasing by the hour debt, enabling the introduction of my proposed tax cuts which will spur economic growth and get us off this slide into progressive economic oblivion. Not very hard to understand.

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't we just extend the Bush tax cuts? They were supposed to spur the jobs market. But alas the didn't....imagine that!!

[Guest]

You 'conveniently' choose not to notice the 32 Billion spent on new field development and capital upgrades, an amount four times what was distributed to the stockholders....No, I wasn't "not noticing" the new field development and capex. But you were complementing XOM on the wonderful results of their R&D expenditures. I was responding to that.

[Guest]

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't we just extend the Bush tax cuts? They were supposed to spur the jobs market. But alas the didn't....imagine that!!

Need more. Cutting of business taxes and cutting of capital gains taxes to spur private investment. Obama could stop spending us into oblivion also, that would definitely help.

[Guest]

I will go along with cutting business taxes but cutting capitol gains just makes the rich richer and lessons their tax burden even more and no matter what you keep repeating over and over the rich are not using their tax gains to create jobs. The rich are keeping their gains to themselves. You want to continue to give them tax breaks so they accrue more wealth fine,just don't mask it in the bogus they create jobs nonsense. Keep supporting the super wealthy and the corporations, I would rather support the middle class where I am trying to remain.

[Guest]

Are capital gains taxes still indexed for inflation? That was a lynchpin of one of the previous tax reform bills from years ago.

[Guest]

I will go along with cutting business taxes but cutting capitol gains just makes the rich richer and lessons their tax burden even more and no matter what you keep repeating over and over the rich are not using their tax gains to create jobs. The rich are keeping their gains to themselves. You want to continue to give them tax breaks so they accrue more wealth fine,just don't mask it in the bogus they create jobs nonsense. Keep supporting the super wealthy and the corporations, I would rather support the middle class where I am trying to remain.

Cutting capital gain taxes motivates people to diversify and divest capital and move it around to try to gain more profit. When capital gains taxes are too high people sit on their assets as it is likely to be unprofitable to "cash in" and move the money to another opportunity. We need to ease the way to prospective higher profits for the producers. It moves the economy. The race to profit is the engine of our economy. You punish the profiteers and you stall growth. When you stall growth.............well, you should get the idea.

Stop the envy and the jealousy about who has what, and lets get those capitalists capitalizing.

[Guest]

Need more. Cutting of business taxes and cutting of capital gains taxes to spur private investment. Obama could stop spending us into oblivion also, that would definitely help.

Heard today it costs 10 billion a year for air-conditioning in Iraq. The costs of 2
now 3 wars, off budget drug benefits and TARP/Stim package. Big spenders anywhere you look. I believe the tax level is at it's lowest in what 30 to 50 years? You going to cut middle class taxes to?

[Guest]

Heard today it costs 10 billion a year for air-conditioning in Iraq. The costs of 2
now 3 wars, off budget drug benefits and TARP/Stim package. Big spenders anywhere you look. I believe the tax level is at it's lowest in what 30 to 50 years? You going to cut middle class taxes to?

You know only about half the people in the country pay federal taxes, right?

[Guest]

I will go along with cutting business taxes but cutting capitol gains just makes the rich richer and lessons their tax burden even more and no matter what you keep repeating over and over the rich are not using their tax gains to create jobs. The rich are keeping their gains to themselves. You want to continue to give them tax breaks so they accrue more wealth fine,just don't mask it in the bogus they create jobs nonsense. Keep supporting the super wealthy and the corporations, I would rather support the middle class where I am trying to remain.

Wayne, There are only a few things you can do with money: (1) you can spend it; (2) you can save it; (3) you can give it away; or (4) you can invest it. Any of these activities creates jobs. What you should never do is just sit on it (stuff it under the mattress, etc). If the rich were to simply keep their gains to themselves, they would not only be dumb, but be losing money. I want more people who can save and invest. The multiplier effect in job creation is higher than either gifting or spending, although both of these have a much more positive effect on our economy than giving it to the government for waste in ideas such as 'green' energy.

[Guest]

You know only about half the people in the country pay federal taxes, right?

Yes, I understand that some people don't make enough money to pay taxes although they do pay payroll taxes...not INCOME taxes. So if the rich are paying less taxes and you want to cut them even more, corporations are paying less taxes, sometimes NO taxes and the poor don't pay taxes then who is left to pay taxes.


THE MIDDLE CLASS.....which if something doesn't change will join the ranks of the poor.

I fight for the middle class.