Obama's admission

[Wallace108]

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]

SHHH!! People will hear you

[Mach1]

Bu...bu...bu...Bush

[venom]

So Liberals lied ?

[HometownGal]

So Liberals lied ?

Nah - say it aint so!!!

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

[Wallace108]

Nah - say it aint so!!!

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

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]

Nah - say it aint so!!!

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

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

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

[Texasteel]

So Liberals lied ?

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

[venom]

Nah - say it aint so!!!

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

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

[Hindes204]

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]

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

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

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

[smokin3000gt]

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]

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]

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.

[Wallace108]

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]

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.

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]

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.
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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)...



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]

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]

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]

source:
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/y...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/2...s-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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.