Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Mons Venus on August 02, 2010, 09:07:09 AM
-
This worthless C U N T is unbelieveable.
-
Do you care more about the writing on her hand or the fact that come 2011, we are facing a tax tsunami like you cant believe?
She is 1000000000000000% correct in that video, in spite of the hand writing.
-
Like most politicians (except chris christie) - she refuses to tell us EXACTLY WHAT SHE"LL CUT IN THE BUDGET.
Repubs always say "cut spending!" then refuse to tell us which americans' jobs they'll be taking. Even garbage pork projects do employ people.
i'd admire her if she, like Christie, said "I intend to slash the following programs and lay off 500,000 americans whose jobs are wasteful".
-
Like most politicians (except chris christie) - she refuses to tell us EXACTLY WHAT SHE"LL CUT IN THE BUDGET.
Repubs always say "cut spending!" then refuse to tell us which americans' jobs they'll be taking. Even garbage pork projects do employ people.
i'd admire her if she, like Christie, said "I intend to slash the following programs and lay off 500,000 americans whose jobs are wasteful".
Rep. Ryan has put forth a plan that most people say would work by cutting spending back to 2006 levels.
-
Do you care more about the writing on her hand or the fact that come 2011, we are facing a tax tsunami like you cant believe?
She is 1000000000000000% correct in that video, in spite of the hand writing.
Allowing the EXPIRATION of Bush's temporary tax cuts will not cause Armageddon. Out of control Government spending on bogus wars (14 BILLION per month) will.
Palin calling the expiration "the largest tax increase ever".......is more word salad BS. Much like Palin herself.
-
Allowing the EXPIRATION of Bush's temporary tax cuts will not cause Armageddon. Out of control Government spending on bogus wars (14 BILLION per month) will.
Palin calling the expiration "the largest tax increase ever".......is more word salad BS. Much like Palin herself.
Repubs purposefully set them to expire right before the 2010 midterms.
They could have put them in place PERMANENTLY. They chose not to ;)
-
Repubs purposefully set them to expire right before the 2010 midterms.
They could have put them in place PERMANENTLY. They chose not to ;)
Right. ::) ::) ::)
-
Repubs purposefully set them to expire right before the 2010 midterms.
They could have put them in place PERMANENTLY. They chose not to ;)
I agree. All games at the expense of a clueless public.
-
I agree. All games at the expense of a clueless public.
Sorry - this is a huge issue and Obama and the fellow traveling marxists are intentionally destroying the nation since they know enacting this tax hike will even further weaken the economy.
-
Sorry - this is a huge issue and Obama and the fellow traveling marxists are intentionally destroying the nation since they know enacting this tax hike will even further weaken the economy.
It's not a tax hike. It's an EXPIRATION of W's temp. tax cuts. Bush orchestrated the EXPIRATION date....not Obama.
Besides...I paid 39.4% under Clinton and the country did ok. ;)
-
It's not a tax hike. It's an EXPIRATION of W's temp. tax cuts. Bush orchestrated the EXPIRATION date....not Obama.
Besides...I paid 39.4% under Clinton and the country did ok. ;)
::) ::)
The guy who nets 700 a week now, and then nets 675, is seeing this as a tax hike.
And sorry, the dems played games like this in 1995 when the GOP wanted to slow the rate of growth in spending and they called it "cuts".
Some of us remember those days.
-
::) ::)
The guy who nets 700 a week now, and then nets 675, is seeing this as a tax hike.
And sorry, the dems played games like this in 1995 when the GOP wanted to slow the rate of growth in spending and they called it "cuts".
Some of us remember those days.
They all play games.... I remember.
I say end the bogus Wars (14 Billion month) and make the temp. tax cuts permanant. To me that sounds reasonable.
-
Right. ::) ::) ::)
Please... tell me what I am wrong about.
Repubs could have made them permanent or given them a 10 year lifespan. Why the 5 year lifespan, set to expire right before the 2010 midterms?
If the dems were REPEALING the cuts, it'd be one thing. But they're not. They're allowing some bush policy to sunset.
-
Please... tell me what I am wrong about.
Repubs could have made them permanent or given them a 10 year lifespan. Why the 5 year lifespan, set to expire right before the 2010 midterms?
If the dems were REPEALING the cuts, it'd be one thing. But they're not. They're allowing some bush policy to sunset.
No they couldnt because they had to go via reconcilliation since it was a budgetary thing. I'll get the details for you later.
-
No they couldnt because they had to go via reconcilliation since it was a budgetary thing. I'll get the details for you later.
ok cool. Dems keep saying they let it expire at this time on purpose. I'd like to see that proven wrong.
-
ok cool. Dems keep saying they let it expire at this time on purpose. I'd like to see that proven wrong.
Same here.
-
Same here.
“The Bush tax cuts never should’ve been passed because, one, we couldn’t afford them, and second, we didn’t earn them,”
David Stockman, Reagan White House Budget guru
-
“The Bush tax cuts never should’ve been passed because, one, we couldn’t afford them, and second, we didn’t earn them,”
David Stockman, Reagan White House Budget guru
Huh? Its not the govts freaking money. What I make is mine, not yours.
Go take your grubby, greedy, greasy, self and provide for yourself.
-
May 26, 2010
Why Are the Bush Tax Cuts Expiring?
________________________ ________________________ ____
Why are the Bush tax cuts, which were passed primarily in 2001 and 2003, expiring at the end of this tax year? In other words, why weren't they made permanent?
During the legislative fight over tax cuts in 2001, Senate Republicans could not predict with certainty that they would reach the 60-vote threshold of support that would have enabled them to make the tax cuts permanent. As a result, when Congress passed the first of many tax cuts during the last decade in May 2001, it passed it as a reconciliation bill which needs only 51 votes. That was the so-called Bush tax cut, formally known as the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (EGTRRA, pronounced egg-tray).
Reconciliation was devised in 1974 as a way to for the Senate to deal more effectively with budget bills, but it soon became a technique to limit amendments and debate. In 1985, the Senate added the so-called Byrd rule to reconciliation. Named after Senator Robert Byrd, the rule forbids a bill passed under reconciliation from, among other things, altering federal revenue for more than 10 years. Any senator may object that a provision violates that stricture, and if the presiding officer agrees, a vote of 60 senators is required to overturn the ruling.
In 1999, the Senate for the first time used reconciliation to pass legislation that would increase deficits: the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act 1999. The budget was in surplus at the time, but it was still controversial. In any case, President Clinton vetoed the bill. A year later the Senate again used reconciliation to pass the Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000, which President Clinton also vetoed.
Overall, 62 senators supported H.R. 1836 as amended by the Senate, thereby sending it to conference. In the end, 58 senators voted in favor of the conference report. Nevertheless, because the bill was passed under reconciliation, revenues further than 10 years in the future could not be changed. And so, on December 31, 2010, all of EGTRRA will expire and revert to 2001 law.
The 2003 tax cuts mostly accelerated the original tax cuts, but also put in place new tax cuts for dividends and capital gains. The 2003 tax cut, known as the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA) was also passed under reconciliation.
Tallies of how members of Congress voted on the final versions of each of the two major tax cuts (2001 and 2003):
•Senate vote on passage of 2001 tax cuts: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00170
•House vote on passage of 2001 tax cuts: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll149.xml
•Senate vote on passage of 2003 tax cuts: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00196
•House vote on passage of 2003 tax cuts: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll225.xml
Legislation (text, timeline, etc.) of the two major tax cuts:
•2001 legislation: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.01836
•2003 legislation: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.00002
Printer FriendlySend to a Friend©2010 Tax Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/26312.html
-
Huh? Its not the govts freaking money. What I make is mine, not yours.
Go take your grubby, greedy, greasy, self and provide for yourself.
Calm down 333's.... Danny was quoting Reagans financial guru.
Bush's guru Greenspasm is NOW on the same bandwagon.
Now what.... Attack Obama?
-
lol
-
Calm down 333's.... Danny was quoting Reagans financial guru.
Bush's guru Greenspasm is NOW on the same bandwagon.
Now what?
Yes and again - they are saying we should offset it with spending cuts.
Why cant we try that for once?
-
Calm down 333's.... Danny was quoting Reagans financial guru.
Bush's guru Greenspasm is NOW on the same bandwagon.
Now what.... Attack Obama?
El Maestro was clintons' guy.
-
Calm down 333's.... Danny was quoting Reagans financial guru.
Bush's guru Greenspasm is NOW on the same bandwagon.
Now what?
Hey ....you're making sense...AGAIN! DAMN!! What am I gonna say now????? Seriously, when two of the most prominent economic top dogs, who are supposed to DEFEND the cuts make the same type of statement they must be onto something.
-
May 26, 2010
Why Are the Bush Tax Cuts Expiring?
________________________ ________________________ ____
Why are the Bush tax cuts, which were passed primarily in 2001 and 2003, expiring at the end of this tax year? In other words, why weren't they made permanent?
During the legislative fight over tax cuts in 2001, Senate Republicans could not predict with certainty that they would reach the 60-vote threshold of support that would have enabled them to make the tax cuts permanent. As a result, when Congress passed the first of many tax cuts during the last decade in May 2001, it passed it as a reconciliation bill which needs only 51 votes. That was the so-called Bush tax cut, formally known as the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (EGTRRA, pronounced egg-tray).
Reconciliation was devised in 1974 as a way to for the Senate to deal more effectively with budget bills, but it soon became a technique to limit amendments and debate. In 1985, the Senate added the so-called Byrd rule to reconciliation. Named after Senator Robert Byrd, the rule forbids a bill passed under reconciliation from, among other things, altering federal revenue for more than 10 years. Any senator may object that a provision violates that stricture, and if the presiding officer agrees, a vote of 60 senators is required to overturn the ruling.
In 1999, the Senate for the first time used reconciliation to pass legislation that would increase deficits: the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act 1999. The budget was in surplus at the time, but it was still controversial. In any case, President Clinton vetoed the bill. A year later the Senate again used reconciliation to pass the Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000, which President Clinton also vetoed.
Overall, 62 senators supported H.R. 1836 as amended by the Senate, thereby sending it to conference. In the end, 58 senators voted in favor of the conference report. Nevertheless, because the bill was passed under reconciliation, revenues further than 10 years in the future could not be changed. And so, on December 31, 2010, all of EGTRRA will expire and revert to 2001 law.
The 2003 tax cuts mostly accelerated the original tax cuts, but also put in place new tax cuts for dividends and capital gains. The 2003 tax cut, known as the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA) was also passed under reconciliation.
Tallies of how members of Congress voted on the final versions of each of the two major tax cuts (2001 and 2003):
•Senate vote on passage of 2001 tax cuts: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00170
•House vote on passage of 2001 tax cuts: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll149.xml
•Senate vote on passage of 2003 tax cuts: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00196
•House vote on passage of 2003 tax cuts: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll225.xml
Legislation (text, timeline, etc.) of the two major tax cuts:
•2001 legislation: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.01836
•2003 legislation: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.00002
Printer FriendlySend to a Friend©2010 Tax Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/26312.html
Ok without the 60 votes Bush utilized a way around it called Reconciliation. 10yrs is the limit......and it's over.
-
Hey ....you're making sense...AGAIN! DAMN!! What am I gonna say now????? Seriously, when two of the most prominent economic top dogs, who are supposed to DEFEND the cuts make the same type of statement they must be onto something.
What don't you understand about the fact that the govt spent recklessely and had two wars? End the wars, cut spending, and we can allow people to retain more of their money.
Its not your fucking money and you have no right to make a claim to my labor to spend as you wish.
-
What don't you understand about the fact that the govt spent recklessely and had two wars? End the wars, cut spending, and we can allow people to retain more of their money.
Its not your fucking money and you have no right to make a claim to my labor to spend as you wish.
As I said previously....end Bush's bogus Wars....then cut taxes.
-
What don't you understand about the fact that the govt spent recklessely and had two wars? End the wars, cut spending, and we can allow people to retain more of their money.
Its not your fucking money and you have no right to make a claim to my labor to spend as you wish.
I totally agree with ending the war. Spending, however is a little bit different especially given the fact recession was deeper than previously estimated. And since our previous administration showed us what they can do and how, I'm just gonna give this one the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise and trust the idea that spending might be necessary for now instead of pretending to know better than all the guys that make the economical team and reached this conclusion.
-
This worthless C U N T is unbelieveable.
What's unbelievable is how mind-bogglingly ridiculous you sound. This was a joke, as both Palin and Wallace wer clearly indicating by their conversation.
-
What's unbelievable is how mind-bogglingly ridiculous you sound. This was a joke, as both Palin and Wallace wer clearly indicating by their conversation.
There is a common consensus that the original " energy,taxes, american spirits" was in true Palin'esque fashion as genuine as possible. That reflected a clear moment of how "capable" this character is and should have provided a hint to some of you enough at least to consider that she's a fuckin moron for not even being able to remember her main 3 talking points which are supposed to be her forte. All these recurring episodes are nothing more than deflection from her original cheating scandal and a pathetic try to make it look legit.
-
There is a common consensus that the original " energy,taxes, american spirits" was in true Palin'esque fashion as genuine as possible. That reflected a clear moment of how "capable" this character is and should have provided a hint to some of you enough at least to consider that she's a fuckin moron for not even being able to remember her main 3 talking points which are supposed to be her forte. All these recurring episodes are nothing more than deflection from her original cheating scandal and a pathetic try to make it look legit.
Exactly. How many times can this moron use her 'poor mans teleprompter' to deflect from the initial embarrassment of reading off her palm.
She's pathetic.
-
I honestly hope the Democrats are stupid enough to end the Bush tax cuts. They, like some of you idiots, believe that only the wealthy are being taxed. Once they end those tax cuts, the small businesses and the man earning LESS than $250k a year will pay higher taxes. It will be glorious. The Republicans could run a chimp against Obama in 2012 and still win.
-
I honestly hope the Democrats are stupid enough to end the Bush tax cuts. They, like some of you idiots, believe that only the wealthy are being taxed. Once they end those tax cuts, the small businesses and the man earning LESS than $250k a year will pay higher taxes. It will be glorious. The Republicans could run a chimp against Obama in 2012 and still win.
Bush ended the tax cuts in 2010. Get your 'facts' straight.
-
I honestly hope the Democrats are stupid enough to end the Bush tax cuts. They, like some of you idiots, believe that only the wealthy are being taxed. Once they end those tax cuts, the small businesses and the man earning LESS than $250k a year will pay higher taxes. It will be glorious. The Republicans could run a chimp against Obama in 2012 and still win.
True. The notion that these tax cuts are for the "wealthy" is wrong.
-
True. The notion that these tax cuts are for the "wealthy" is wrong.
according to whom??? fox news???? ::)
-
according to whom??? fox news???? ::)
Those who paid taxes got a cut.
If you are a lazy welfare queen, you cant get a tax cut.
-
according to whom??? fox news???? ::)
::)
-
This worthless C U N T is unbelieveable.
Aaaaeeerrrrrrraaaaaa.... .
Mons, just curious on much more ownage you can take?
-
Do you care more about the writing on her hand or the fact that come 2011, we are facing a tax tsunami like you cant believe?
She is 1000000000000000% correct in that video, in spite of the hand writing.
Maybe she's not correct, maybe the person who wrote that on her hand is?
-
Repubs purposefully set them to expire right before the 2010 midterms.
They could have put them in place PERMANENTLY. They chose not to ;)
Yes,great point,because they knew that the democrats would controll both houses and the presidency.Ha,ha,ha do you actually read what you post?They tried to make them permanent many times but the dumb ass libs stopped them.
-
Bush ended the tax cuts in 2010. Get your 'facts' straight.
Bush didn't end anything. What did you want him to do? Pass a legislation that would be active for infinity? There wasn't enough support for permanent tax cuts.
The point is my simple minded friend, the party in power has a choice to continue it or end it. There is a provision to continue the tax cuts if politicians vote for it. But, no. Democrats rather pit the poor against the wealthy. And special people like you fall for that farce. You fall for the lie that the wealthy were the only ones to benefit, when in fact EVERYONE, INCLUDING SMALL BUSINESSES THAT FILE AS INDIVIDUALS, got a tax break.
So go ahead, stupid democrats and left wing morons. Let Bush's tax cuts run out. The Republicans will run a donkey against the ass in the white house and still win.
-
according to whom??? fox news???? ::)
According to anyone who has ever bothered to read the legislation.
LOL!!!! "No one under 250k will get a tax increase." This will be broken once the tax cuts are allowed to run out. It has already been broken with the passing of health care reform.
-
Yes,great point,because they knew that the democrats would controll both houses and the presidency.Ha,ha,ha do you actually read what you post?They tried to make them permanent many times but the dumb ass libs stopped them.
It was 2005, right?
In 2005, they knew what polls said for 2006... they were in for taking a bath. They knew about the pendulum effect from reading 240 posts, so they knew it would be 4-6 years until they were in a position to take back the congress.
-
It was 2005, right?
In 2005, they knew what polls said for 2006... they were in for taking a bath. They knew about the pendulum effect from reading 240 posts, so they knew it would be 4-6 years until they were in a position to take back the congress.
Without a doubt the dumbest point you have ever made.They tried to make them permanent many many times.Please give me the list of republicans that knew Obama would be president in 2008 in 2005.
Off topic,did you see your official polster gallup has Obama at 41%?I thought after the great health care bill passed his approval would be at 60% or higher.
-
Without a doubt the dumbest point you have ever made.They tried to make them permanent many many times.Please give me the list of republicans that knew Obama would be president in 2008 in 2005.
Off topic,did you see your official polster gallup has Obama at 41%?I thought after the great health care bill passed his approval would be at 60% or higher.
Most people just got whacked with a 25% increase in health costs.
I swear, and I REPEAT, if something happened, whether it was a natural disaster or otherwise, shutting down the govt for good, i would throw a party.
Obama, Reid, Pelosi, are traitors, treasonous pices of filth, and communists. If they all were lost in a tsunami, i would cheer.
-
most ppl with a brain knew the direction the cong and WH were going in 2005.
They knew 2006 was going to be a huge dem win, and it doesn't take a lot of brain cells to figure after squeaking out 00 and 04 wins (barely), there was enough bush hatred to allow barney the Dino to win the WH for the dems in 2008.
They knew in 2005 that their next chance to really win BACK something big would be 2010.
-
most ppl with a brain knew the direction the cong and WH were going in 2005.
They knew 2006 was going to be a huge dem win, and it doesn't take a lot of brain cells to figure after squeaking out 00 and 04 wins (barely), there was enough bush hatred to allow barney the Dino to win the WH for the dems in 2008.
They knew in 2005 that their next chance to really win BACK something big would be 2010.
Sorry, you are just making stuff up. Throwing crap all over the place and hoping something sticks.
-
most ppl with a brain knew the direction the cong and WH were going in 2005.
They knew 2006 was going to be a huge dem win, and it doesn't take a lot of brain cells to figure after squeaking out 00 and 04 wins (barely), there was enough bush hatred to allow barney the Dino to win the WH for the dems in 2008.
They knew in 2005 that their next chance to really win BACK something big would be 2010.
Hmmmm,thats funny,after 2008 I read that republicans wouldnt regain power for 50 years after Bush.
Once again,you still havent explained why they tried to get them permanantly in over and over again only to be thwarted by democrats everytime.Your argument is insane and sounds like something Ed Shultz would say,of course,unlike him you probably wouldnt do it in a scraggly voice so people think your tough like he does.
-
Hmmmm,thats funny,after 2008 I read that republicans wouldnt regain power for 50 years after Bush.
That was all the talk a year and a half ago. Now, the GOP looks to get medieval on the Democrats in three months.
-
That was all the talk a year and a half ago. Now, the GOP looks to get medieval on the Democrats in three months.
If you look back at my posts from Nov 2008, I said then on Obama had a choice - follow pelosi off the cliff or really act as a unifying president.
He chose to dance with the far left and now he has to live with the results.
-
If you look back at my posts from Nov 2008, I said then on Obama had a choice - follow pelosi off the cliff or really act as a unifying president.
He chose to dance with the far left and now he has to live with the results.
Some Democrats are trying to avoid the plunge by keeping Obama far, FAR AWAY from their campaigns. Of course, with an 0-4 track record, I don't blame them.
Again, in just 18 months, the talk went from how long the Dems would have power and whether the GOP was even a relevant party, to the Dems on the brink of receiving (to quote Michael Moore), "an @$$-whipping of Biblical proportions".
-
According to anyone who has ever bothered to read the legislation.
LOL!!!! "No one under 250k will get a tax increase." This will be broken once the tax cuts are allowed to run out. It has already been broken with the passing of health care reform.
Yep. A lot of those affected by the tax increase will be small business. And every time taxes are raised on business, business passes that increase on to consumers.