Tax Cuts

[Birchtree]

Is anyone aware that most High Schools have inhouse day care to take care of those little illegitimates that are born to the minority at risk free lunch bunch - the liberals want to keep mom in school. Someone has to pay for this nonsense. The simple solution is to keep them knees together and stop paying for and encouraging illegitamacy.

 

[James48843]

CBS Poll:

http://pollingreport.com/budget.htm

CBS News Poll. Nov. 29-Dec. 1, 2010. N=808 adults voters nationwide. MoE ± 4.​

"Which comes closest to your view about the tax cuts passed in 2001? The tax cuts should be continued for everyone. The tax cuts should only continue for households earning less than $250,000 a year. OR, The tax cuts should expire for everyone."​

View attachment 10281​

The vast majority of people in this country do NOT want the tax cuts extended for rich people.

 

[Steel_Magnolia]

Eye opening split on the demographic, isn't it.

 

[Birchtree]

The vote fails - not going to Congress.

 

[James48843]

The vote fails - not going to Congress.

What do you mean "the vote fails- not going to Congress"?

The vote in the House passed. It is now going to the Senate, where it will be voted upon on Saturday.

If the republicans block the bill, the result will be a tax increase for everyone, squarely at the feet of the republicans who block it.

If the republicans don't block the bill, then it will be voted on, and passed.


That's the choice. Do republicans block it, out of step with mainstream America?

 

[Birchtree]

http://www.marketwatch.com

 

[Silverbird]

http://www.marketwatch.com

Oh, you mean the vote on recommending the entire Deficit package. That's not a nice tame tax cut, that's get out the razor.
Give the group credit, there were 11 votes; more than was expected. It just was too bad they couldn't get 3 more. 14 out of 18 proved too difficult.

 

[James48843]

Oh, you mean the vote on recommending the entire Deficit package. That's not a nice tame tax cut, that's get out the razor.
Give the group credit, there were 11 votes; more than was expected. It just was too bad they couldn't get 3 more. 14 out of 18 proved too difficult.

All three of the republican appointees voted no.

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...l-commission-wins-majority-for-deficit-cuts/1

Aren't they just "special".

 

[Viva_La_Migra]

What do you mean "the vote fails- not going to Congress"?

The vote in the House passed. It is now going to the Senate, where it will be voted upon on Saturday.

If the republicans block the bill, the result will be a tax increase for everyone, squarely at the feet of the republicans who block it.

If the republicans don't block the bill, then it will be voted on, and passed.


That's the choice. Do republicans block it, out of step with mainstream America?

If those making more than $200,000 (individual) don't get a tax cut, then none of us should. But then, I'm also of the view that we should all pay the same flat tax percentage of say 15%.

Imagine if every individual and corporation paid the same 15% and had no deductions outside a generous deduction that allows the extremely poor to continue to pay no income tax. Isn't that what the Democrats claim to be fore, equal treatment under the law? Why is it the Democrats are into such discrimination?

 

[tsptalk]

All three of the republican appointees voted no.

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...l-commission-wins-majority-for-deficit-cuts/1

Aren't they just "special".

So did your union buddy, Andy Stern. When they all agree on something, should we be worried?

 

[James48843]

So did your union buddy, Andy Stern. When they all agree on something, should we be worried?

Absolutely.

 

[Silverbird]

All three of the republican appointees voted no.

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...l-commission-wins-majority-for-deficit-cuts/1

Aren't they just "special".

Five Democrats, five Republicans and one Independent supported the report, including Sen. Majority Whip Richard Durbin (D., Ill).

 

[Birchtree]

Tax me enough and I'll eventually qualify for the earned income tax credit - now that's free money I can enjoy.

 

[nnuut]

I read most of this thing and there were a few things I wouldn't agree with myself. Back to the drawing board Boys, this time make it fair, no breaks for the loafers.

 

[Buster]

Boehner says GOP to lead on extending tax cuts​

The White House has signaled that President Barack Obama is prepared to sign a bill extending tax cuts at all levels, as Republicans want. At the same time, Democrats want the bill to include an extension of unemployment benifits for the long-term unemployed, renewal of tax provisions benefiting college students, companies that hire the jobless and lower- and middle-income workers, even if they don't make enough to pay federal taxes.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101204/ap_on_bi_ge/us_tax_cuts​

 

[Mike]

All three of the republican appointees voted no.

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...l-commission-wins-majority-for-deficit-cuts/1

Aren't they just "special".

It's funny how you selectively point to GOP opposition while ignoring the opposition from the hard left in this post. The reasonable people on the panel from the left and right supported the plan - which is precisely why it won't gain acceptance in Congress, since that chamber is run by the extreme ideologues in both parties.

Hooray, perpetual deficits, growing debt, and a potential default.

And the vast majority of people don't want tax cuts extended for the rich because... wait for it... the vast majority of people don't make over $250k per year. This illustrates the root of the problem we have in this country: people want all the benefits of government, but they do not want to pay for them - hence deficits as politicians continue to borrow and spend, fearing they will lose their jobs when voters realize what the true cost of government is.

 

[Show-me]

It's funny how you selectively point to GOP opposition while ignoring the opposition from the hard left in this post. The reasonable people on the panel from the left and right supported the plan - which is precisely why it won't gain acceptance in Congress, since that chamber is run by the extreme ideologues in both parties.

Hooray, perpetual deficits, growing debt, and a potential default.

And the vast majority of people don't want tax cuts extended for the rich because... wait for it... the vast majority of people don't make over $250k per year. This illustrates the root of the problem we have in this country: people want all the benefits of government, but they do not want to pay for them - hence deficits as politicians continue to borrow and spend, fearing they will lose their jobs when voters realize what the true cost of government is.

A articulate voice of reason. Thank you Mike.

The original intent of the founding fathers was that landowners would only have a vote. I wonder why? Could it be so that non-land owners could not take the majority and steal the landowners property from them through excessive taxation? Uhmmmm. Now James would like to point out that it was originally WHITE landowners and that it was racist and unfair.

Here is a early morning story that shows when the governments of the world continue to pander to their voters by giving them all kind of entitlement programs in return for their votes. When the money runs out and the tough real life choices have to be made this is what happens.

This is what James and his kind want, they want to bleed the cow until it dies instead of rationing the milk and spreading the work load evenly among the ALL citizens to pay for the Nations well being.

Spain declares State of Alert after wildcat strikes

The Spanish government has declared a State of Alert following a walkout by air traffic controllers, which has left at least 20,000 Britons stranded.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/t...res-State-of-Alert-after-wildcat-strikes.html

 

[James48843]

... Could it be so that non-land owners could not take the majority and steal the landowners property from them through excessive taxation? Uhmmmm. Now James would like to point out that it was originally WHITE landowners and that it was racist and unfair.

I never said anything of the kind. I have two words for you-

YOU LIE!

Here is a early morning story that shows when the governments of the world continue to pander to their voters by giving them all kind of entitlement programs in return for their votes. When the money runs out and the tough real life choices have to be made this is what happens.

This is what James and his kind want, they want to bleed the cow until it dies instead of rationing the milk and spreading the work load evenly among the ALL citizens to pay for the Nations well being.

Again, I have two words for you.

YOU LIE!


I never said anything at all about bleeding cows.

As for "rationing milk", I have this to say:

Our nation was strongest economically in the 1950's and 1960's, compared to other nations around this planet.

What were the tax structures then?

I think we ought to duplicate the economic structures that were successful when we had superior economic growth. That would be....TOP TAX RATES OVER 70%, and a growing middle class. Not all the money being sucked to the richest 1% of the population, and a shrinking middle.


SHARE THE WEALTH.

and it will create more.

Here ya go. Here's why they want the Bush Tax Cuts extended.
http://www.beltwaytalk.com/showthre...stinking-TAX-CUTS.&p=8720&viewfull=1#post8720

 

[Boghie]

Our nation was strongest economically in the 1950's and 1960's, compared to other nations around this planet.

What were the tax structures then?

I think we ought to duplicate the economic structures that were successful when we had superior economic growth. That would be....TOP TAX RATES OVER 70%, and a growing middle class. Not all the money being sucked to the richest 1% of the population, and a shrinking middle.


SHARE THE WEALTH.

The tax code before Reagan had loopholes you could drive a truck through. A 70% tax burden wasn't a 70% tax burden. The Reagan tax code closed the vast majority of those loopholes and simplified the income tax code. However, those loopholes have – over time – come back to a minor extent. Thus a 39.9% tax burden will not be a 39.9% tax burden – see Warren Buffet. I would very much like to see Warren Buffet's tax forms from the Clinton era. Did he pay more in 1995 than he did in 2005? I will put a paycheck THAT HE DID NOT.

So, James, I don’t think you want a 70% tax bracket without an AMT and with write-off loopholes (consumer credit card debt as an example) that were just plain silly.

Finally, the GenX generation will game the system if they feel it is unfair. They were brought up that way. Kinda independent, kinda nasty, kinda aggressive, and very willing to break eggs to make omlettes – see CongressCritter Ryan. There is too much information out there for politicians to stay ahead in this game. Yup, I am a GenXer. And, yup, I already have a plan to zero out the tax increase. Then again, so does Buffet and Gates and Kerry and Kennedy. I’ve got practice. I zeroed out Kalefornea’s tax increase last year. What are you going to do with your tax increase?

Note: James, while I think Show-Me is being a bit of a curmudgeon, I think you are being odd as well. You know very well that he wasn't quoting you. Let me be clear. If you think government spending has more benefit then private economic activity and charitable activity than do not itemize your tax forms. Think of how much time and effort you will save. And, you will do your part to fund government spending!!! If only Warren Buffet would do the same. It is so easy. Lets start by sharing your wealth. One happy taxpayer at a time!!!

 

[Birchtree]

The 1950s and 1960s were profitable because we weren't yet a Socialist, pinky, welfare country. People had work incentives and morals - today there is no shame to sit on one's azz and let uncle feed the brats. Illegitimacy is ruining the country and you can thank the liberals for that.