PDA

View Full Version : Obama's admission



Wallace108
12-07-2010, 11:28 PM
During the debate over extending Bush's tax cuts to the wealthy, one thing has been lost in the conversation ... Obama and the Dems finally admitted that Bush also gave tax cuts to the middle class. For years all we heard was that Bush gave tax cuts ONLY to the wealthy.

smokin3000gt
12-07-2010, 11:46 PM
SHHH!! People will hear you :nervous:

Mach1
12-07-2010, 11:51 PM
Bu...bu...bu...Bush

venom
12-08-2010, 05:49 AM
So Liberals lied ?

HometownGal
12-08-2010, 06:13 AM
So Liberals lied ?

Nah - say it aint so!!! :horror: :heh:

From what I've been hearing, the Demos are PISSED at Obama for extending the Bush tax cuts. :lol:

Wallace108
12-08-2010, 07:11 AM
Nah - say it aint so!!! :horror: :heh:

From what I've been hearing, the Demos are PISSED at Obama for extending the Bush tax cuts. :lol:

Yep, the libs are irate. I think before any member of Congress votes to raise taxes on ANY American right now, they should first vote to give themselves pay cuts. Not a pay freeze, but an actual cut. Leaders must first lead by example.

SteelMember
12-08-2010, 07:45 AM
Nah - say it aint so!!! :horror: :heh:

From what I've been hearing, the Demos are PISSED at Obama for extending the Bush tax cuts. :lol:

Wasn't it basically a tradeoff/compromise for extending unemployment benefits.

That's what I though anyway. :noidea: At least they got something.

Texasteel
12-08-2010, 07:48 AM
So Liberals lied ?

Yes, but only when they are talking, or writing.

venom
12-08-2010, 09:24 AM
Nah - say it aint so!!! :horror: :heh:

From what I've been hearing, the Demos are PISSED at Obama for extending the Bush tax cuts. :lol:

If Liberals want to raise taxes just go to the nearest IRS office and donate . Im sure they will take it from you

Hindes204
12-08-2010, 09:30 AM
The tax cuts are good....the extension of unemployment benefits is getting out of hand

Unfortunately everyone is focused on how great these tax cuts are, but what did they really do but approve cuts that have been status quo for a decade. So, the republicans got nothing but a tax break that was already in effect, and the dems got thier unemployment extension. I'd say the dems won this round, I'm not sure why they are all pissed

7SteelGal43
12-08-2010, 10:58 AM
Wasn't it basically a tradeoff/compromise for extending unemployment benefits.

That's what I though anyway. :noidea: At least they got something.

Yes, there was an extension of unemployment benefits in the deal. YAY DEMS ! :jerkit: "it's ok hon, I don't have to look for a job 'til next year. SWEET!"

smokin3000gt
12-08-2010, 11:03 AM
I know quite a few people that will be milking the UE until the next deadline.

Funny how the people that I know that really do want to work have found jobs without a problem..

smokin3000gt
12-08-2010, 11:05 AM
The tax cuts are good....the extension of unemployment benefits is getting out of hand

Unfortunately everyone is focused on how great these tax cuts are, but what did they really do but approve cuts that have been status quo for a decade. So, the republicans got nothing but a tax break that was already in effect, and the dems got thier unemployment extension. I'd say the dems won this round, I'm not sure why they are all pissed

I agree 100%

SteelMember
12-08-2010, 12:04 PM
I know quite a few people that will be milking the UE until the next deadline.

Funny how the people that I know that really do want to work have found jobs without a problem..

I know what you are saying. I have mixed feelings on the subject myself. It's very easy to sympathize with those people who are by all accounts trying to find work. Unfortunately, there are always going to be those "other" people who are out to fleece the system. To them, taking $100 less per week for jobs they can probably get, to sit home on their butts is easy money. Extending the benefits even more will just lead to more lethargy and procrastination, imo. Besides, they'll just make up the difference with unreported cash jobs.

I am all for the benefits, but the length of them is where the problem is for me. Besides, it's money we (the government) don't even have anyway. What's a little loan interest between countries. :doh:

Wallace108
12-08-2010, 06:05 PM
On the way home from work, I heard a Dem on the radio say, "We need to find a way to extend benefits to the unemployed without giving away $750 billion to the super rich."

Putting aside the unemployment issue, I see two things wrong with this statement.
First of all, I don't consider someone who makes $250,000 a year to be "super rich." And a person's wealth is relative. If you live in a big city and make $250,000 a year, you're not nearly as "rich" as someone who makes the same amount of money but lives in, say, Youngstown, Ohio.

Second of all, the government isn't GIVING AWAY anything to the rich ... it's their money. The government is trying to TAKE it. It's no wonder so many people believe in the Democrats' agenda ... they're masters at using words and catchphrases to manipulate an issue.

Godfather
12-08-2010, 07:09 PM
I know what you are saying. I have mixed feelings on the subject myself. It's very easy to sympathize with those people who are by all accounts trying to find work. Unfortunately, there are always going to be those "other" people who are out to fleece the system. To them, taking $100 less per week for jobs they can probably get, to sit home on their butts is easy money. Extending the benefits even more will just lead to more lethargy and procrastination, imo. Besides, they'll just make up the difference with unreported cash jobs.

I am all for the benefits, but the length of them is where the problem is for me. Besides, it's money we (the government) don't even have anyway. What's a little loan interest between countries. :doh:

Good way to fix it would be to make it a fixed period, and you get paid no matter what happens with your job search.

So that way, you don't end up in a situation where you take a lower paying job and then get punished for it by getting your benefits cut off. Instead, whatever job you get, you still get the benefits for the fixed period and it's a bonus. Plus if your new job pays less it helps you with the transition to a lower income. Then you have time to properly reduce your expenses (ie you can't cancel a cell phone contract without a huge up front penalty, but the benefits help close the gap and you can get a cheaper plan when you re-up).

SteelMember
12-09-2010, 07:51 AM
Good way to fix it would be to make it a fixed period, and you get paid no matter what happens with your job search.

So that way, you don't end up in a situation where you take a lower paying job and then get punished for it by getting your benefits cut off. Instead, whatever job you get, you still get the benefits for the fixed period and it's a bonus. Plus if your new job pays less it helps you with the transition to a lower income. Then you have time to properly reduce your expenses (ie you can't cancel a cell phone contract without a huge up front penalty, but the benefits help close the gap and you can get a cheaper plan when you re-up).

That would be a good idea if more people were financially responsible. Building some capital with basically two incomes could work. Unfortunately, I see them living the same life, not making any changes, and basically ending up worse for the wear when their second check comes to an end.

You have offered an alternative idea though, and not just committed to throwing more money at the problem.:thumbsup:
What happens when the next extension runs out? They're only pushing the issue into the future in hopes that it will somehow fix itself with a better economy.
Unemployment is a safety net. It can only hold so many people for so long, then it's going to break. If something doesn't change, all those people are going to fall through all at once.

The Patriot
12-10-2010, 11:17 AM
I guess cutting the wealthiest 5%'s income tax by 10% and cutting the middle class' income tax by 2% qualifies as a middle class tax cut.

Oh well, Obama caves again. This will add another trillion to the deficit, but I guess we only care about that when its a Democratic bill. I'm sure the rich will use this money to invest in the economy. Surely they've lines their pockets sufficiently by now.

Wallace108
12-10-2010, 11:49 AM
I guess cutting the wealthiest 5%'s income tax by 10% and cutting the middle class' income tax by 2% qualifies as a middle class tax cut.

If by 2% tax cut, you're talking about the cut in payroll taxes, then that will save about $800 for someone making $40,000. That's certainly better than nothing, and a whole lot better than an increase.


Oh well, Obama caves again. This will add another trillion to the deficit, but I guess we only care about that when its a Democratic bill. I'm sure the rich will use this money to invest in the economy. Surely they've lines their pockets sufficiently by now.

I've heard this said countless times, but how is it going to add a trillion dollars to the deficit? Because they won't be getting money they were counting on? Other than the unemployment benefits, the government isn't paying out any money through the cuts. They just won't be taking in more money (no different than the past decade). Here's the Democrats' logic: A man's wife says she needs a new pair of shoes that cost $100. The husband tells her they're broke and they can't afford to spend $100. So the wife goes out and buys a pair for $60. The husband is pissed. The wife says, "Why are you mad? I just saved you $40."

Here's what I'm having trouble with in terms of Democrats' thinking: Putting class warfare aside, businesses, especially small businesses, are struggling. They can't afford to hire more people. So how is raising their taxes going to get them to hire more?

Mach1
12-10-2010, 12:06 PM
I guess cutting the wealthiest 5%'s income tax by 10% and cutting the middle class' income tax by 2% qualifies as a middle class tax cut.

Oh well, Obama caves again. This will add another trillion to the deficit, but I guess we only care about that when its a Democratic bill. I'm sure the rich will use this money to invest in the economy. Surely they've lines their pockets sufficiently by now.

The only thing thats going to add money to the deficit is Obaaamas uncontrolled spending.

I think I'm going to fire myself so I can sit on my ass for three years and collect unemployment.

Mach1
12-10-2010, 12:08 PM
If by 2% tax cut, you're talking about the cut in payroll taxes, then that will save about $800 for someone making $40,000. That's certainly better than nothing, and a whole lot better than an increase.



I've heard this said countless times, but how is it going to add a trillion dollars to the deficit? Because they won't be getting money they were counting on? Other than the unemployment benefits, the government isn't paying out any money through the cuts. They just won't be taking in more money (no different than the past decade). Here's the Democrats' logic: A man's wife says she needs a new pair of shoes that cost $100. The husband tells her they're broke and they can't afford to spend $100. So the wife goes out and buys a pair for $60. The husband is pissed. The wife says, "Why are you mad? I just saved you $40."

Here's what I'm having trouble with in terms of Democrats' thinking: Putting class warfare aside, businesses, especially small businesses, are struggling. They can't afford to hire more people. So how is raising their taxes going to get them to hire more?

Maybe we should move to their planet 'Libitardia' so we can understand their fcuked up way of thinking.

The Patriot
12-10-2010, 12:17 PM
If by 2% tax cut, you're talking about the cut in payroll taxes, then that will save about $800 for someone making $40,000. That's certainly better than nothing, and a whole lot better than an increase.



I've heard this said countless times, but how is it going to add a trillion dollars to the deficit? Because they won't be getting money they were counting on? Other than the unemployment benefits, the government isn't paying out any money through the cuts. They just won't be taking in more money (no different than the past decade). Here's the Democrats' logic: A man's wife says she needs a new pair of shoes that cost $100. The husband tells her they're broke and they can't afford to spend $100. So the wife goes out and buys a pair for $60. The husband is pissed. The wife says, "Why are you mad? I just saved you $40."

Here's what I'm having trouble with in terms of Democrats' thinking: Putting class warfare aside, businesses, especially small businesses, are struggling. They can't afford to hire more people. So how is raising their taxes going to get them to hire more?
If Republicans were really telling the wife "we can't afford that, don't buy it" I would vote for them every time. The reality is they say to the wife "don't pay cash; put it on my credit card".

The fact is federal income tax raked in about $1.2 trillion in 2009 (as said on wikipedia). And here's the 2009 federal budget (note the total)...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7a/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png/800px-U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png

Holy shit, this couple is going to be in debt up to their eyeballs. Ask a Republican if he wants to cut Defense, Social Security, or Medicare. If we're gonna have these large programs we'd better pay for them.

X-Terminator
12-10-2010, 03:03 PM
The Dems are already proposing Medicare spending cuts as part of the Obamacare legislation, the very thing that Republicans were excoriated for wanting to do during the Clinton years. People on SS are not getting a COLA for the 2nd straight year. Republicans have tried for years to do something about SS, but they got blocked at every turn by the Democrats. If you want to cut spending, let's take a look at some of the "mandatory" and "discretionary" spending. That is where the large part of the problem is and where cuts can most easily be made. But ultimately, everyone on that chart may be forced to have its budget cut in some fashion in order to get the federal budget back into balance. Plus, did you stop to think that tax receipts are lower because the rich guys aren't spending, they aren't creating jobs which means more people out of work and fewer people paying taxes? The point of extending the Bush tax cuts was to instill some kind of certainty into the market, not to "give away" money to the rich. Now that businesses know their taxes won't be raised, they can go ahead and start hiring more people back to work. I DO know that nobody wants their taxes increased - not the poor (payroll taxes), middle class (income + payroll) or the "rich." People are paying enough already.

Craic
12-10-2010, 03:35 PM
I know quite a few people that will be milking the UE until the next deadline.

Funny how the people that I know that really do want to work have found jobs without a problem..

Just depends on where you live. I have a buddy that was let go, and he has been out of work now going on 2 years. He has been on a number of interviews. But people even more experienced and qualified are taking jobs under his qualifications, bumping him out... or, the people hiring know there is such a glut of unemployed that they are raising their bar for employment to the point that many who have done that very job now can't meet the minimum requirements- again, my friend fits that scenario. Did the very job for years, but now, one of his former companies who is hiring for THAT job, now has put a qualification that you must have an MBA. Why? WHo knows. Because at this point, they can.

The Patriot
12-10-2010, 03:50 PM
source:
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/yearrev2005_0.html#usgs302

The gross revenue has dropped from 1.4 and 1.7 in recent years to 1.2 (probably because of the recession), but we're still nowhere near paying for what we're spending in a fiscal year.

Furthermore, even if we completely slashed discretionary and mandatory spending from the budget, that still wouldn't be enough to cover the bill.

People simply aren't paying enough already, not when they're demanding 3.5 trillion dollars from the government. Sure, none of us want the government to be spending ridiculous sums of money, but when you break it down (as the NY Times did with this "you fix the budget" puzzle program http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html) everybody wants a different piece of the pie. You may say that mandatory and discretionary spending deserves the most cuts, but somebody else might say defense or medicare.

We, as the American people, are asking more of our government in $ amounts than we are willing to pay for, and that has just been the issue over the last couple decades, through Republican and Democratic administrations alike. Politicians would rather use China's charge card to get a bunch of goodies for their constituents and complain about the deficit later.


The Dems are already proposing Medicare spending cuts as part of the Obamacare legislation, the very thing that Republicans were excoriated for wanting to do during the Clinton years. People on SS are not getting a COLA for the 2nd straight year. Republicans have tried for years to do something about SS, but they got blocked at every turn by the Democrats. If you want to cut spending, let's take a look at some of the "mandatory" and "discretionary" spending. That is where the large part of the problem is and where cuts can most easily be made. But ultimately, everyone on that chart may be forced to have its budget cut in some fashion in order to get the federal budget back into balance. Plus, did you stop to think that tax receipts are lower because the rich guys aren't spending, they aren't creating jobs which means more people out of work and fewer people paying taxes? The point of extending the Bush tax cuts was to instill some kind of certainty into the market, not to "give away" money to the rich. Now that businesses know their taxes won't be raised, they can go ahead and start hiring more people back to work. I DO know that nobody wants their taxes increased - not the poor (payroll taxes), middle class (income + payroll) or the "rich." People are paying enough already.

X-Terminator
12-10-2010, 04:06 PM
We, as the American people, are asking more of our government in $ amounts than we are willing to pay for, and that has just been the issue over the last couple decades, through Republican and Democratic administrations alike. Politicians would rather use China's charge card to get a bunch of goodies for their constituents and complain about the deficit later.

I agree with this totally, and I believe the culture has a LOT to do with that. Over the years, politicians on both sides have used the "government is here to help you" mantra in order to gain support, and as such we've created an entire society of dependents. America didn't get to be the greatest country in the world by relying on the government to give them everything they want and need, beyond the basic stuff such as infrastructure, regulating interstate commerce, defense, etc. We got to be #1 due to our self-reliance and hard work. The "dependent" mentality is so ingrained in our society now that proposing needed cuts in anything, requiring them to do more with less, causes people to go apeshit. And yet, that's exactly what needs to happen in order to fix this mess.

I'm not foolish, though. I know that eventually, taxes are going to be raised. And people will be pissed. So if and when that happens, I damn sure hope there will be programs in place where people can get some breaks, especially for small businesses who are the real backbone of this country. America is the least business-friendly country in the world, and that simply cannot be allowed to continue.

Count Steeler
12-10-2010, 04:15 PM
If the economy is so bad and a lot of people have been laid off, how come politicians don't get axed? Economy not so hot, cut congress and the senate by 10%.

X-Terminator
12-10-2010, 04:26 PM
If the economy is so bad and a lot of people have been laid off, how come politicians don't get axed? Economy not so hot, cut congress and the senate by 10%.

What? You mean the people actually take back control of their government? Surely you jest!

Wallace108
12-11-2010, 01:40 AM
Furthermore, even if we completely slashed discretionary and mandatory spending from the budget, that still wouldn't be enough to cover the bill.

People simply aren't paying enough already, not when they're demanding 3.5 trillion dollars from the government. Sure, none of us want the government to be spending ridiculous sums of money, but when you break it down everybody wants a different piece of the pie. You may say that mandatory and discretionary spending deserves the most cuts, but somebody else might say defense or medicare.

We, as the American people, are asking more of our government in $ amounts than we are willing to pay for, and that has just been the issue over the last couple decades, through Republican and Democratic administrations alike. Politicians would rather use China's charge card to get a bunch of goodies for their constituents and complain about the deficit later.

When people think of "the rich," they tend to think of people like Bill Gates. But a lot of the people the Democrats are classifying as rich aren't exactly living in the lap of luxury. You start raising taxes on small-business owners, and they're going to do one of two things ... they're either going to lay off employees or they're going to jack up the price of their goods and services. If the latter happens, then the middle class will be paying for those tax increases. But I guess the Democrats don't care where the money comes from, just as long as it comes.

When it comes to cutting spending, you and I are probably closer to agreement. People want spending cuts ... as long as it doesn't affect THEM. Before we start touching Social Security, Medicare, Defense, and other areas of necessary spending, I think we need to look in other areas. How about the billions we give every year in foreign aid? Cut it. How can we help other people when we can't even help ourselves? And we need to eliminate the pork. If a lawmaker wants millions in taxpayer money so someone in their district or state can study the mating habits of fruit flies, then let them get the money from private donors. I'd love to know exactly how many billions of dollars are wasted in pork just so politicians can get re-elected. If we eliminated foreign aid and pork, would it solve all our problems? No, but it's a start. And we should be looking at that before we start cutting Defense or our own social programs.

Wallace108
12-11-2010, 01:42 AM
If the economy is so bad and a lot of people have been laid off, how come politicians don't get axed? Economy not so hot, cut congress and the senate by 10%.

I said earlier in this thread that before lawmakers vote to raise taxes on ANY American, I think they should vote to give themselves pay cuts. Lead by example.

Wallace108
12-11-2010, 01:46 AM
Plus, did you stop to think that tax receipts are lower because the rich guys aren't spending, they aren't creating jobs which means more people out of work and fewer people paying taxes?

This is the key! The best way to create more tax revenue is to create more jobs. And the best way to create more jobs is to stop screwing the people who create jobs.

Wallace108
12-11-2010, 09:45 AM
In his tax-cut filibuster yesterday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) criticized the greed of multimillionaires. He said "greed is like an addiction" and compared it to heroin and nicotine. "This reckless uncontrollable greed is like a disease," Sanders said. He asked how can anyone be proud to call themselves a "multimillionaire?"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/12/10/sen_bernie_sanders_to_rich_when_is_enough_enough.h tml

:sofunny: I'm glad he clarified that he was talking about multimillionaires, or else I would have thought he was talking about the government.

venom
12-11-2010, 11:09 AM
http://warnet.ws/img5/86/pod/7.jpg

st33lersguy
12-11-2010, 11:30 AM
In his tax-cut filibuster yesterday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) criticized the greed of multimillionaires. He said "greed is like an addiction" and compared it to heroin and nicotine. "This reckless uncontrollable greed is like a disease," Sanders said. He asked how can anyone be proud to call themselves a "multimillionaire?"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/12/10/sen_bernie_sanders_to_rich_when_is_enough_enough.h tml

:sofunny: I'm glad he clarified that he was talking about multimillionaires, or else I would have thought he was talking about the government.

Who? People like Bill Gates and John Huntzman who give billions of their own money to charity?

I want to know how someone can be proud to say they voted for this nut

Mach1
12-11-2010, 07:43 PM
When was the last time any of you libs were employed by a poor person?

The Patriot
12-12-2010, 10:20 AM
When was the last time any of you libs were employed by a poor person?

When I start my own business.

Mach1
12-12-2010, 12:16 PM
When I start my own business.

So the answer is zero.

Wait till that business makes $250,000 and your considered rich. Never mind making payroll and all the other shit that goes along with running a business that gets paid for first.

The Patriot
12-12-2010, 12:50 PM
So the answer is zero.

Wait till that business makes $250,000 and your considered rich. Never mind making payroll and all the other shit that goes along with running a business that gets paid for first.

Like I said, if you don't want to pay taxes then we shouldn't have social security, medicare, and nation-building endeavors in the middle east. :bored:

You "conservatives" are the crazy ones. "Let's spend 1.5 trillion dollars to try to turn Iraq and Afghanistan into democracies, and let's cut our taxes, and then let's blame Democrats when they try to return our tax rates to normal, even though we couldn't have covered the deficit had we never cut our taxes to begin with"

X-Terminator
12-14-2010, 06:10 AM
Like I said, if you don't want to pay taxes then we shouldn't have social security, medicare, and nation-building endeavors in the middle east. :bored:

You "conservatives" are the crazy ones. "Let's spend 1.5 trillion dollars to try to turn Iraq and Afghanistan into democracies, and let's cut our taxes, and then let's blame Democrats when they try to return our tax rates to normal, even though we couldn't have covered the deficit had we never cut our taxes to begin with"

It's not about not paying NO taxes. It's about paying TOO MUCH in taxes. You cannot tax people at ridiculous rates and expect anything other than stagnant growth, especially small businesses. Like I said, America is perhaps THE most business-unfriendly country in the world, and Democrats like you are a big part of the reason why. China, a COMMUNIST country, has no capital gains tax, and their corporate tax rate is significantly lower than ours. The result? Their economy is growing at more than 10%. Why the hell can't we try that here, in the supposed "land of the free?" Oh that's right, businesses are part of the "evil rich," and therefore they don't deserve a tax cut. Silly me. I don't know why you think allowing people - and businesses - to keep more of what they earn is so damn bad.

On top of that, the government wastes billions of taxpayer dollars every year, and you expect people to just sit by and not say anything about it? If the government actually spent money wisely and knew how to operate within a reasonable budget, and got REAL bang for your buck, then there would be a lot less bitching and moaning.

Wallace108
12-14-2010, 08:21 AM
If the government actually spent money wisely and knew how to operate within a reasonable budget, and got REAL bang for your buck, then there would be a lot less bitching and moaning.

:amen:

Not only that ... there would be no NEED to raise taxes.

The Patriot
12-16-2010, 06:10 PM
It's not about not paying NO taxes. It's about paying TOO MUCH in taxes. You cannot tax people at ridiculous rates and expect anything other than stagnant growth, especially small businesses. Like I said, America is perhaps THE most business-unfriendly country in the world, and Democrats like you are a big part of the reason why. China, a COMMUNIST country, has no capital gains tax, and their corporate tax rate is significantly lower than ours. The result? Their economy is growing at more than 10%. Why the hell can't we try that here, in the supposed "land of the free?" Oh that's right, businesses are part of the "evil rich," and therefore they don't deserve a tax cut. Silly me. I don't know why you think allowing people - and businesses - to keep more of what they earn is so damn bad.

On top of that, the government wastes billions of taxpayer dollars every year, and you expect people to just sit by and not say anything about it? If the government actually spent money wisely and knew how to operate within a reasonable budget, and got REAL bang for your buck, then there would be a lot less bitching and moaning.

China doesn't have social security and medicare. This tea party movement will gripe about taxes being too high, but when you ask them about cutting defense, medicare, and social security, they'll back off and say "Oh, no. Government, keep your hands off my medicare!"

I've never received a dime of taxpayers money from any program like welfare, social security, or medicare, and I sure don't like being taxed for the sake of being taxed, but I know just from logic that if you're going to have these programs for the poor, sick, and elderly, you have to pay for them.

We wouldn't have even been able to pay for Medicare, Social Security, and Defense alone without borrowing money from China if Bush had never even cut taxes. :frusty:

And Bush cut taxes like 8 years ago! Where's the prosperity it was supposed to generate? Last I remember, at the end of his term the wealthy businesses were begging for billions of dollars of tax payers' money just to keep themselves afloat. I'm sure they'll pay that money back sometime soon... NOT!

(and if it feels like I'm yelling, I'm not. I'm just supplying emphasis)

smokin3000gt
12-16-2010, 06:19 PM
...............

On top of that, the government wastes billions of taxpayer dollars every year, and you expect people to just sit by and not say anything about it? If the government actually spent money wisely and knew how to operate within a reasonable budget, and got REAL bang for your buck, then there would be a lot less bitching and moaning.

A lot less taxes too.

X-Terminator
12-16-2010, 06:30 PM
China doesn't have social security and medicare. This tea party movement will gripe about taxes being too high, but when you ask them about cutting defense, medicare, and social security, they'll back off and say "Oh, no. Government, keep your hands off my medicare!"

I've never received a dime of taxpayers money from any program like welfare, social security, or medicare, and I sure don't like being taxed for the sake of being taxed, but I know just from logic that if you're going to have these programs for the poor, sick, and elderly, you have to pay for them.

We wouldn't have even been able to pay for Medicare, Social Security, and Defense alone without borrowing money from China if Bush had never even cut taxes. :frusty:

And Bush cut taxes like 8 years ago! Where's the prosperity it was supposed to generate? Last I remember, at the end of his term the wealthy businesses were begging for billions of dollars of tax payers' money just to keep themselves afloat. I'm sure they'll pay that money back sometime soon... NOT!

(and if it feels like I'm yelling, I'm not. I'm just supplying emphasis)

The economy was doing just fine and was rebounding nicely from the 9/11 attacks until the housing market collapsed, which ended up crippling the banking industry. And try as you might, you can't put that one at the feet of George Bush. Had that not happened, I'm confident that we would not be in the mess we're in right now. And many Republicans were against the bailouts anyway.

BTW, who created Medicare and Social Security? Hint - it wasn't the Republicans. And they made several promises, most notably that they would not cost any more than 1 or 2 percent per dollar earned, that they knew back then that they couldn't keep. Personally, I have no problem with either program but they must be fixed in order for them to remain solvent. Neither side seems to want to do that, despite all of the lip service. Both sides have also criticized the other at some point for wanting to cut Medicare (Dems criticized Repubs in the 90s, Repubs are criticizing Dems now). So they just keep kicking the can down the road.

I still don't understand why you have such a problem with people keeping more of what they earn. And I still believe if you want to create more jobs, then give businesses the incentive to do so. Confiscatory tax rates do exactly the opposite.

Doc_Holiday
12-30-2010, 03:35 PM
Too bad Obama is a wuss. He should've stood firm as that would show he meant what he said. I can stand people who are so willing to compromise - what a wuss.

Mach1
01-01-2011, 01:51 AM
Too bad Obama is a wuss. He should've stood firm as that would show he meant what he said. I can stand people who are so willing to compromise - what a wuss.

http://annika.mu.nu/archives/spineless-poster.jpg