Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Benny B on December 02, 2010, 06:18:47 PM
-
Shameful!
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House has passed a bill to extend middle-class tax cuts while letting those for the wealthy expire, even as talks continue on extending the cuts for everyone.
The bill is a political maneuver to satisfy Democratic supporters who oppose extending tax cuts for the wealthy. Even if the bill passes the House, it has no chance in the Senate, where Democrats need Republican support to pass a tax bill.
Sweeping tax cuts enacted under former President George W. Bush expire at the end of the year. A small bipartisan group of lawmakers and Obama administration officials continued negotiating Thursday on a deal that could extend all the tax cuts, at least temporarily.
The House passed the Democratic bill by a vote of 234 to 188.
-
Please. You know this is bogus nonsense.
-
letting all tax cuts expire is better than letting them all stay in place
-
To bad 98% of Americans don't actually pay taxes
-
To bad 98% of Americans don't actually pay taxes
Many corporations don't pay income tax either.
Google Inc paid a paltry 2.4% this year..
I thought the number of Americans who didn't pay income taxes was about 40%.
-
Republicans want tax cuts to be extended for EVERYBODY. Its Democrats that have the record of raising taxes on the benighted. It was George Bush that cut thier taxes. So dont give us this shit. By the way, its not just Republicans who will kill it in the Senate, Democrats will too.
-
Bad Thread! :-X
-
obama has done 100x more to harm the economic recovery than to help it...
anyone of you fuking morons want to talk about that?
straw? benny?
-
letting all tax cuts expire is better than letting them all stay in place
spoken like a true obama supporter
I bet you feel the health care bill, finereg and cap and trade are good for the economy dont you?
-
spoken like a true obama supporter
I bet you feel the health care bill, finereg and cap and trade are good for the economy dont you?
let them all expire
lower income earner won't even feel it and since keeping them in place would increase the deficit it's better to let them all go and Repubs can write new legislation if they want to
-
So, the republicans voted against tax cuts ( that the democrats claimed never existed in the first place) that republicans voted for under GW Bush?
FYI-- not only is the premise of this thread "chicken crap", but "chicken crap" is an apt description of what is between Benita Blancito's ears.
-
Shameful!
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House has passed a bill to extend middle-class tax cuts while letting those for the wealthy expire, even as talks continue on extending the cuts for everyone.
The bill is a political maneuver to satisfy Democratic supporters who oppose extending tax cuts for the wealthy. Even if the bill passes the House, it has no chance in the Senate, where Democrats need Republican support to pass a tax bill.
Sweeping tax cuts enacted under former President George W. Bush expire at the end of the year. A small bipartisan group of lawmakers and Obama administration officials continued negotiating Thursday on a deal that could extend all the tax cuts, at least temporarily.
The House passed the Democratic bill by a vote of 234 to 188.
PLEASE!!!!
The Dems were running Congress for the last 3 years and 11 months. They've had PLENTY of opportunities to address this tax cut issue.
And, unless my memory fails me, it was Nancy "we-have-to-pass-the-bill-so-we-know-what's-in-it" Pelosi, who was the tiebreaking vote to PUNT the tax cut vote until later.
Now, after getting the lips slapped off their faces in midterms, all of a sudden, the Dems are OOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHH so concerned about the Bush tax cuts.
What's "shameful" is the liberals, waiting until month before they get chucked out of office, to address this and pass foolishness that they KNOW will die in the Senate.
-
Please amend the title of this misleading thread to reflect that 20 Democrats voted with Republicans against this measure.
-
Please amend the title of this misleading thread to reflect that 20 Democrats voted with Republicans against this measure.
Not to mention the blue dogs in the Senate, who survived midterms but are scared to death to vote for tax hikes, as they're up in 2012.
-
To bad 98% of Americans don't actually pay taxes
your fuc ing joking, right :o
-
Please amend the title of this misleading thread to reflect that 20 Democrats voted with Republicans against this measure.
Woah.. if 333 can Put, Obama called swat on Grandmothers " in a thread title.. well um.. you see what im sayin chief
-
Silly game to try to imply that only Republicans voted against it. More and more Democrats are joining the Republicans in extending them to everyone.
-
Woah.. if 333 can Put, Obama called swat on Grandmothers " in a thread title.. well um.. you see what im sayin chief
I see what you are saying. Now tell him again on THAT THREAD...you see what I'm saying chief?
-
And now, unemployment is "officially" 9.8 percent. Yeah, Democrats GO AHEAD AND RAISE TAXES ON people making $250,000 and up.
-
What do you mean MCWAY? The UE is still not under 8%? I thought Dems were supposed to cure all that ailed the economy?
Who would have thought that raising taxes could actually hamper job creation? Seems like most Dems never got the memo.
-
This mess is solely on the far left idiots. They had two years to deal with this.
-
Dems should vote against this for a couple of reason
first the lower income earners only got tiny tax cuts anyway and they literally won't feel any difference
letting the tax cuts expire will help reduce the deficit (Repubs are in favor of that right)
lastly and perhaps most important it will set the tone for the Dem/Repub dynamic and let the Repubs know that they actually have to compromise if they want to get something done
Sadly, I think the Dems will cave and hand the Repubs a victory and yet Repubs will continue to slam Obama for the deficit in spite of the fact that they (Repubs) voted to increase the deficit
no win for anyone except very rich people and Repubs
-
Straw - the problem is that none of any supposed added revenue will be used for deficit reduction - they will piss It away.
-
This mess is solely on the far left idiots. They had two years to deal with this.
3333, they were too busy with Obama care. Poor guys they were so hard at work. Obama care was WAY more important because it was going to lower premiums, save you and your employer money, cut the deficit by $143 billion and we would live happily ever after. Gay soldiers and legalizing immigrants and their entire families is of the highest priority. Sure, lets allow more people into a country that can't even provide jobs for it's legal citizens.
-
We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Adding more taxes is not going to do squat.
-
Straw - the problem is that none of any supposed added revenue will be used for deficit reduction - they will piss It away.
what added revenue are you talking about?
extending all tax cuts is supposed to increase deficit by 700 billion
Repubs and Dems are voting to increase the deficit to give wealthy people more tax cuts but next week they'll be telling us why they have to cut something (or can't fund something) that will only effect middle class/poor people because it will increase the deficit
-
your fuc ing joking, right :o
Do a little research before making yourself look stupid (again), ever heard of the earned income tax credit?
-
We have had these rates for ten years already. The 700 billion figure is pure bs.
-
let them all expire
lower income earner won't even feel it and since keeping them in place would increase the deficit it's better to let them all go and Repubs can write new legislation if they want to
So basically what your saying is, the government went on a spending spree and fucked up the economy and now instead of the government cutting said spending, the tax payer should just buck up and be patriotic and pay more? Why? the government won't pay down the deficit, they'll just find some other hand out to spend it on.
-
Do a little research before making yourself look stupid (again)
He can't help it. It comes natural for him.
-
So basically what your saying is, the government went on a spending spree and fucked up the economy and now instead of the government cutting said spending, the tax payer should just buck up and be patriotic and pay more? Why? the government won't pay down the deficit, they'll just find some other hand out to spend it on.
we need increase in tax revenue coupled with decrease in spending and we need it for a long time to come
people making 30-50k a year won't even feel the tax increase and the higher income earners won't feel it either.
The idea that we have to extend tax cuts for uber wealty so that maybe they will grace our economy with new jobs is bullshit
These tax cuts were enacted at a time when we had a deficit and were not involved in 2 wars
let them expire and let's draft new legislation based on our current situation
-
Yeah straw - bama won't even get behind his own debt commissions recommendations.
-
Yeah straw - bama won't even get behind his own debt commissions recommendations.
you mean the commission that Repubs said they wanted and then when Obama got on board the 6 Repubs who co-sponsored the bill voted against it and Obama had to create it by executive order
do you know any Repubs who want to "get behind" that commission?
-
you mean the commission that Repubs said they wanted and then when Obama got on board the 6 Repubs who co-sponsored the bill voted against it and Obama had to create it by executive order
do you know any Repubs who want to "get behind" that commission?
Straw= wants to "get behind" any member of the same sex that he can find
-
It's all Bush's fault. It's the Reps fault. Everyone is at fault except the false messiah and the Dems. The task is just too hard for them.
Please.
-
Straw= wants to "get behind" any member of the same sex that he can find
hilarious
your first response is to accuse someone of being gay
when are you going to stop hating yourself and come out of the closet
or maybe you enjoy the dark closet with your buddy Billy
-
we need increase in tax revenue coupled with decrease in spending and we need it for a long time to come
people making 30-50k a year won't even feel the tax increase and the higher income earners won't feel it either.
The idea that we have to extend tax cuts for uber wealty so that maybe they will grace our economy with new jobs is bullshit
These tax cuts were enacted at a time when we had a deficit and were not involved in 2 wars
let them expire and let's draft new legislation based on our current situation
Are you out of your natural mind?
The higher income earners WILL feel it. They always do, because the rich ain't just going to sit back and let Uncle Sam snatch their cash. They're going to bail, leaving the burden on us.
-
Are you out of your natural mind?
The higher income earners WILL feel it. They always do, because the rich ain't just going to sit back and let Uncle Sam snatch their cash. They're going to bail, leaving the burden on us.
the rich are going to bail and "leave the burden on us" ?
where exactly are they going to go when they bail?
maybe they can move to Somolia where there are no taxes
The rich are weathly in large part due to living in this country with our low tax rates and and economic environment that enabled them to accumulate wealth.
even if they do "feel it" it won't change their life in any significant way and we already know that giving them a tax cut won't create jobs
so....the only effect it that we increase the deficit and have nothing to show for it in return
-
No amendment to the title yet?
-
Please. You know this is bogus nonsense.
why?
-
why?
Because the rates have stayed the same for the last 10 years! Keep rates does not add to the deficit. They are making wild assumptions about the revenue generation from these tax hikes which is the same hokus pokus crap you ignorantly, foolishly, and stupisly bought into that was behind the Stim Bill. Remember how that worked out for you?
Raising taxes NEVER results in the promised revenue from the thieves nd whatever money they do get invariably gets pissed away.
-
hilarious
your first response is to accuse someone of being gay
when are you going to stop hating yourself and come out of the closet
or maybe you enjoy the dark closet with your buddy Billy
I never accused anyone on this entire board of being gay except you. I'm also not homophobic. Your comparison doesn't fly at all. However, I am inclined to believe that your incessant need to respond indicates you have a guilty conscience about being in the closet yourself.
-
I never accused anyone on this entire board of being gay except you. I'm also not homophobic. Your comparison doesn't fly at all. However, I am inclined to believe that your incessant need to respond indicates you have a guilty conscience about being in the closet yourself.
I'm not buying it but keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better
why don't you try commenting on the topic of the thread instead
-
We should be passing legislation to drop tax rates even further. Until the federal government can learn how to stop spending, it is pointless to give them any more money. Cut federal spending by 50% and drop taxes 25%. Use the surplus to pay down our debt.
-
The govt currently borrows .43 of every dollar it spends and is doing shit it has no business doing.
Govt needs to shrink by at least 50% if we are to have any type of recovery.
-
The govt currently borrows .43 of every dollar it spends and is doing shit it has no business doing.
Govt needs to shrink by at least 50% if we are to have any type of recovery.
Well, isn't something like HALF of the govt's budget already defense spending?
So by your number of AT LEAST 50% - you are saying you'd like to slash the military in half? True?
And if not, you'd like to compeltely shit down EVERY SINGLE PROGRAM 100% in order to keep military levels at status quo, while cutting things by 50?
I hear this all the time - people who want to slash govt spending by oodles, but want to spend more on military. If that's not you, i apologize - I don't want to assume - so would you be okay with the USA cutting our military (and 1000 overseas bases) IN HALF?
-
Well, isn't something like HALF of the govt's budget already defense spending?
So by your number of AT LEAST 50% - you are saying you'd like to slash the military in half? True?
And if not, you'd like to compeltely shit down EVERY SINGLE PROGRAM 100% in order to keep military levels at status quo, while cutting things by 50?
I hear this all the time - people who want to slash govt spending by oodles, but want to spend more on military. If that's not you, i apologize - I don't want to assume - so would you be okay with the USA cutting our military (and 1000 overseas bases) IN HALF?
Across the board by 10% for 5 years every year.
-
Across the board by 10% for 5 years every year.
okay. So please clarify - you are okay with slashing our military by 10% every year for 5 years?
You're okay with - five years from now - the USA lacking the military support it has in HALF THE WORLD?
You're okay with moving bases out of essential places that keep china and russia in check for fear an attack on USA would result in those bases firing nukes up their asses?
You're okay with putting 1.5 million brave soldiers out of work? (not to mention the support staff which about equals that).
You're okay with having half as much safety in 5 years - when places like NK and iran will start to put their functional nukes on missiles that might make it more than a few miles?
Just say you're okay with that, please.
-
okay. So please clarify - you are okay with slashing our military by 10% every year for 5 years?
You're okay with - five years from now - the USA lacking the military support it has in HALF THE WORLD?
You're okay with moving bases out of essential places that keep china and russia in check for fear an attack on USA would result in those bases firing nukes up their asses?
You're okay with putting 1.5 million brave soldiers out of work? (not to mention the support staff which about equals that).
You're okay with having half as much safety in 5 years - when places like NK and iran will start to put their functional nukes on missiles that might make it more than a few miles?
Just say you're okay with that, please.
Like any other organization - they can figure it out. we can't afford it - how hard is that for you to grasp?
-
Like any other organization - they can figure it out. we can't afford it - how hard is that for you to grasp?
They can "figure it out"?
I mean, if i took half of your internal organs, can you FIGURE IT OUT? LOL! :)
No, it means exactly what I said it means. 1.5 million troops fired. bases on border of china and russia closed.
China is already an inch away from killing our economy. Do you think we can afford to remove the bargaining chip of "we can blow up most of your cities in 40 minutes" off the table? :)
-
They can "figure it out"?
I mean, if i took half of your internal organs, can you FIGURE IT OUT? LOL! :)
No, it means exactly what I said it means. 1.5 million troops fired. bases on border of china and russia closed.
China is already an inch away from killing our economy. Do you think we can afford to remove the bargaining chip of "we can blow up most of your cities in 40 minutes" off the table? :)
Tough shit, we cant afford it anymore.
-
Tough shit, we cant afford it anymore.
what does everyone else here think?
Slash 1/2 of the US military and defense budget - what happens?
Do our enemies get any bolder when half the bases keeping them in check disappear?
-
what does everyone else here think?
Slash 1/2 of the US military and defense budget - what happens?
Do our enemies get any bolder when half the bases keeping them in check disappear?
www.usdebtclock.org
-
what does everyone else here think?
Slash 1/2 of the US military and defense budget - what happens?
Do our enemies get any bolder?
Thats the problem, which is that we would not have to "slash" the military as far as personnel....the VAST majority of the budget is from weapons and development and maintaining overseas bases.....f that...they served a purpose when it was to deter the Soviets, but now we can deploy SO much faster if the need arises. The actual payment to service members is not the problem, and you can't go by what the military figures that are used, as they try to give a "civilian comparison" to what is being paid...adding in housing, medical, etc... at bloated figures.
-
Thats the problem, which is that we would not have to "slash" the military as far as personnel....the VAST majority of the budget is from weapons and development and maintaining overseas bases.....f that...they served a purpose when it was to deter the Soviets, but now we can deploy SO much faster if the need arises. The actual payment to service members is not the problem, and you can't go by what the military figures that are used, as they try to give a "civilian comparison" to what is being paid...adding in housing, medical, etc... at bloated figures.
good point.
but who among us would have wanted to slash atomic weapons research in the 1940s?
-
Thats the problem, which is that we would not have to "slash" the military as far as personnel....the VAST majority of the budget is from weapons and development and maintaining overseas bases.....f that...they served a purpose when it was to deter the Soviets, but now we can deploy SO much faster if the need arises. The actual payment to service members is not the problem, and you can't go by what the military figures that are used, as they try to give a "civilian comparison" to what is being paid...adding in housing, medical, etc... at bloated figures.
Exactly. We could slash military spending by 50% without losing any personnel. We can no longer afford to police the world. If we don't stop spending so much, we won't even be able to protect ourselves. Let's not forget social security, medicare, welfare, education, government jobs, etc. Cut everything 50% and people will learn to adjust.
-
good point.
but who among us would have wanted to slash atomic weapons research in the 1940s?
That is always a tough call....you want to be on the cutting edge with tech. Much of it could be dealt with a VERY open competitive bidding process, instead of just throwing cash at corps to do very remote possibilty testing, just to keep the cash flowing.
Another pet peeve I had when on active was the contractor work. We were often paying guys 5 times, no exaggeration, what a military member could perform if trained properly. A great way to address this is let active duty/reserve personnel do a kind of tradeoff, where the military will send you to a specific school, and I'm talking more about civilian ones, pay for, but you have to obligate a time in service. They already do it with the medical and dental corps and those of us who went to "A" and especially "C" school in the Navy, often had to extend our service obligation to get the school. This would really help with computer/tech guys who could keep themselves up to date in case they want to go into a civilian career after the service.