Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Necrosis on December 03, 2012, 09:39:28 AM
-
Why is it that none of the repubs here find it odd that the GOP have offered nothing? the simply want Obama to offer them what they want, doesn't it seem odd?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/02/on-the-fiscal-cliff-republicans-got-nothin.html
I can't see this working out for them.
-
Why is it that none of the repubs here find it odd that the GOP have offered nothing? the simply want Obama to offer them what they want, doesn't it seem odd?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/02/on-the-fiscal-cliff-republicans-got-nothin.html
I can't see this working out for them.
The GOP is owned by lobbyists. There is maybe 10 honest people in that party left (make that 9 Ron Paul is retired).
Lobbyist dont want to raise taxes so the GOP doesnt want to raise taxes. The GOP is against the people.
-
Why is it that none of the repubs here find it odd that the GOP have offered nothing? the simply want Obama to offer them what they want, doesn't it seem odd?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/02/on-the-fiscal-cliff-republicans-got-nothin.html
I can't see this working out for them.
what has obama offered that they want?
just curious Ive been out of the loop for a little bit but from what Ive heard obama proposed more tax increases and didnt cut spending. I believe he cut projected spending for the future year not current spending.
-
The GOP is owned by lobbyists. There is maybe 10 honest people in that party left (make that 9 Ron Paul is retired).
Lobbyist dont want to raise taxes so the GOP doesnt want to raise taxes. The GOP is against the people.
Are the dems owned by lobbyists as well?
"Lobbyist dont want to cut spending so the [dems] doesnt want to raise taxes. The [dems] is against the people."
This not calling ppl names is pretty rough especially with ppl like you around here.;)
-
Are the dems owned by lobbyists as well?
"Lobbyist dont want to cut spending so the [dems] doesnt want to raise taxes. The [dems] is against the people."
This not calling ppl names is pretty rough especially with ppl like you around here.;)
Many dem are owned by lobbyists as well. No saints here only sinners.
However spending usually benefits poor people so thats why repub wants to cut here.
Right back at ya ;)
-
Many dem are owned by lobbyists as well. No saints here only sinners.
However spending usually benefits poor people so thats why repub wants to cut here.
Right back at ya ;)
hahah so you think spending so much that we will have to raise taxes on everyone to get out of debt is benefiting poor ppl?
There is a time and place to increase taxes but it is not when there is monumental amounts of wasteful spending in the govt that can be cut.
Sorry but I dont agree with taking the hard earned money away from anyone when we can cut wasteful spending in the govt first.
After thats all done then Ill gladly call for tax hikes but until then its idiotic to call for tax hikes before spending cuts.
-
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=447769.25
spending cuts have a bigger increase on the bottom line then tax hikes.
Therefore we would get more bang for our buck cutting spending over raising taxes.
Why are you guys no yelling for cutting spending first?
-
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=447769.25
spending cuts have a bigger increase on the bottom line then tax hikes.
Therefore we would get more bang for our buck cutting spending over raising taxes.
Why are you guys no yelling for cutting spending first?
he offered spending cuts, what the GOP want is for Obama to cut certain programs so they don't have to come out and say it, it's quite obvious. They have offered nothing, not a fucking thing, they want obama to take all the heat and keep offering more and more concessions to them.
Spending cuts however have a impact on those programs, so while they are needed, they have to be intelligently done and in combination with increased revenue. I think more spending in infrastruture needs to be made as it creates jobs and has salutory benefits.
I would want massive reductions in military spending not programs people paid into. It has to be both, if money is made in the US, you shouldnt be allowed to hold it offshore to avoid taxes for example. The money was made using the services the US taxpayers provided, seems kinda dirtbagish to me.
-
he offered spending cuts, what the GOP want is for Obama to cut certain programs so they don't have to come out and say it, it's quite obvious. They have offered nothing, not a fucking thing, they want obama to take all the heat and keep offering more and more concessions to them.
What spending cuts did he offer necrosis?
Like I said from what I heard he offered cuts to future proposed spending not to actual spending that occurs now.
Spending cuts however have a impact on those programs, so while they are needed, they have to be intelligently done and in combination with increased revenue. I think more spending in infrastruture needs to be made as it creates jobs and has salutory benefits.
Lets be totally honest necrosis, do you honestly believe that there arent millions/billions that cant be cut from govt spending that wont effect the employment of govt employees?
These ppl you want to raise taxes on made their money honestly and through hard work. Wouldnt it be alot more fair to let everyone keep their money until all or the majority of wasteful spending in the govt has been cut?
why then are you yelling for taking money away from ppl that rightfully earned it first instead of cutting wasteful spending?
I would want massive reductions in military spending not programs people paid into. It has to be both, if money is made in the US, you shouldnt be allowed to hold it offshore to avoid taxes for example. The money was made using the services the US taxpayers provided, seems kinda dirtbagish to me.
That fine what does that have to do with raising taxes?
you want tax reform not raising taxes if thats your stance...
you really need to rethink your stance and realize that the govt is extremely wasteful and needs to cut back on its spending before they start taking away any more money from the citizens who earned it legally and through their own hard work.
If you want tax reform thats fine, but why then are you ranting and raving about tax hikes?
-
What spending cuts did he offer necrosis?
Like I said from what I heard he offered cuts to future proposed spending not to actual spending that occurs now.
Lets be totally honest necrosis, do you honestly believe that there arent millions/billions that cant be cut from govt spending that wont effect the employment of govt employees?
These ppl you want to raise taxes on made their money honestly and through hard work. Wouldnt it be alot more fair to let everyone keep their money until all or the majority of wasteful spending in the govt has been cut?
why then are you yelling for taking money away from ppl that rightfully earned it first instead of cutting wasteful spending?
That fine what does that have to do with raising taxes?
you want tax reform not raising taxes if thats your stance...
you really need to rethink your stance and realize that the govt is extremely wasteful and needs to cut back on its spending before they start taking away any more money from the citizens who earned it legally and through their own hard work.
If you want tax reform thats fine, but why then are you ranting and raving about tax hikes?
I wouldnt say I'm ranting and raving, I pay 50% income tax currently. I however see the inequality being created in the States, its actually the worst in the department in the developed world. The tax code benefits the rich far more then anyone else, they have far more benefits which are unearned then any other segment of the US citizenry. Wasteful spending is part of it, however, the GOP have offered nothing, not a damn thing. They don't want to show their true colors, they want to cut everything but the military, they want revenue from anyone but the rich.
Everyone makes it sound like those on welfare are living the life. I have a cousin on it his whole life and let me tell you while he sits back like a big ol fat cat with his hand me down funiture, old torn clothing and 300 a month food/entertainment bill I grow envious. I am all for him getting a job but he is unhirable, do we let him die?
this is what I don't get you are fine with the rich paying a lower tax rate then someone in the middle class, even more striking if the offshore accounts, kickbacks etc are factored in yet you don't see the middle class family as having worked just as hard?
-
I wouldnt say I'm ranting and raving, I pay 50% income tax currently. I however see the inequality being created in the States, its actually the worst in the department in the developed world. The tax code benefits the rich far more then anyone else, they have far more benefits which are unearned then any other segment of the US citizenry. Wasteful spending is part of it, however, the GOP have offered nothing, not a damn thing. They don't want to show their true colors, they want to cut everything but the military, they want revenue from anyone but the rich.
Everyone makes it sound like those on welfare are living the life. I have a cousin on it his whole life and let me tell you while he sits back like a big ol fat cat with his hand me down funiture, old torn clothing and 300 a month food/entertainment bill I grow envious. I am all for him getting a job but he is unhirable, do we let him die?
this is what I don't get you are fine with the rich paying a lower tax rate then someone in the middle class, even more striking if the offshore accounts, kickbacks etc are factored in yet you don't see the middle class family as having worked just as hard?
The tax code has "the rich" paying more taxes than the overwhelming majority of the country. High income earners shoulder the bulk of the tax burden in this country. Nearly half of all income earners don't even pay federal income taxes, and those people are not "the rich."
Also, the "rich" includes numerous small businesses that really are not rich at all.
-
The tax code has "the rich" paying more taxes than the overwhelming majority of the country. High income earners shoulder the bulk of the tax burden in this country. Nearly half of all income earners don't even pay federal income taxes, and those people are not "the rich."
Also, the "rich" includes numerous small businesses that really are not rich at all.
percentage, the amount is meaningless.
if you can only see in black and white then we can not continue arguing. Seriously, there is no reason the rich shouldn't pay percentage wise what the middle class family pays. There is no reason at all. The people not paying requires more in depth discussion on the dynamics of that particular issue.
Small businesses get quite a few tax benefits.
-
I wouldnt say I'm ranting and raving, I pay 50% income tax currently. I however see the inequality being created in the States, its actually the worst in the department in the developed world. The tax code benefits the rich far more then anyone else, they have far more benefits which are unearned then any other segment of the US citizenry. Wasteful spending is part of it, however, the GOP have offered nothing, not a damn thing. They don't want to show their true colors, they want to cut everything but the military, they want revenue from anyone but the rich.
Really? b/c both Romney and Ryan were for simplifying the tax code and eliminating loop holes...THATS WHAT YOURE CALLING FOR!!!!
Ive asked MULTIPLE TIMES NOW NECROSIS, what spending cuts have the dems proposed?
why wont you answer my question?
If you truely believe that youre a brainwashed liberal who needs to quit drinking the kool aid.
Everyone makes it sound like those on welfare are living the life. I have a cousin on it his whole life and let me tell you while he sits back like a big ol fat cat with his hand me down funiture, old torn clothing and 300 a month food/entertainment bill I grow envious. I am all for him getting a job but he is unhirable, do we let him die?
why is he unhireable necrosis? if there is a valid reason than thats fine but lets be honest and realize that the majority of ppl on welfare dont have to be on welfare.
If there are reasons like mental illness, physical disability thats fine but those arent the majority of the ranks of welfare recepients.
this is what I don't get you are fine with the rich paying a lower tax rate then someone in the middle class, even more striking if the offshore accounts, kickbacks etc are factored in yet you don't see the middle class family as having worked just as hard?
First the middle class abides by the same tax codes the rich do. They have the same opportunity to take advantage of those loop holes as well. Second I NEVER NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER said I didnt think they didnt work just as hard to earn there money...YOU GET THAT SHIT THROUGH YOU THICK SKULL!!!
Im fine with raising taxes, Im fine with cuttin gloopholes but NOT WHEN THE GOVT IS SO WASTEFUL...
why do you want to take more money away from ppl who it rightfully belongs to supply an extremely wasteful govt?
I need to understand that part necrosis.
we can both agree that the govt is incredibly wasteful and inefficient yet you would rather raise the taxes and take hard earned money away from ppl that righfully deserve it instead of cutting waste fust and then assessing the situation to see if taking others money away is necessary, how is that fair?
-
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=447769.25#lastPost
as you can see necrosis spending cuts will effect the bottom line much greater than tax hikes or increasing revenue.
So why not put your efforts towards cutting the wasteful/inefficient parts of the govt all around before trying to take away hard earned money away from anyone?
I dont wany anybody to have to give up more money then is needed to run the govt. I think we both can agree that the govt is extremely wasteful and can afford to cut a lot of fat off without effecting employment.
So why not cut that first?
Thats what I dont understand Necrosis, you seem to have deep seated dislike/hatred for "rich" ppl which causes you to want to punish them by taking more of their money.
Why would you rather take hard earned money away from ppl who it rightfully belongs before you cut the fat from the govt?
-
percentage, the amount is meaningless.
if you can only see in black and white then we can not continue arguing. Seriously, there is no reason the rich shouldn't pay percentage wise what the middle class family pays. There is no reason at all. The people not paying requires more in depth discussion on the dynamics of that particular issue.
Small businesses get quite a few tax benefits.
It's percentage. It's total amount. Hardly meaningless. They (high income earners and high net worth individuals) already pay their "fair share." Those are just the facts.
What middle class families are you talking about? The ones who pay no federal income taxes?
What kind of tax benefits are you talking about for small businesses? They have enormous government expenses. They're already paying more than most lower income earners.
-
It's percentage. It's total amount. Hardly meaningless. They (high income earners and high net worth individuals) already pay their "fair share." Those are just the facts.
What middle class families are you talking about? The ones who pay no federal income taxes?
What kind of tax benefits are you talking about for small businesses? They have enormous government expenses. They're already paying more than most lower income earners.
since "fair share" is always a judgment call you can't call it a "fact" unless you're saying the statement is in fact a correct representation of your opinion
If you want to talk about actual facts then how about the fact that a recent poll shows that 60% of Americans are in favor of raising taxes on the wealthy (and many other polls have shown this too) http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84319.html
Repubs are going to lose this one but first they are going to bitch and moan and cry like a bunch of 3 year olds who don't want to eat their veggies.
-
as far as i can see both sides are making statements that they are willing to make very modest compromises in order to come to a deal.
president obama has back off his desire to let tax rates increase to the clinton levels on the wealthiest 3%. instead he has proposed meeting halfway between the clinton levels and the bush levels.
the GOP is saying that they are willing to go for the modest tax increase so long as they get spending cuts on medicare and social security.
there is also some talk about closing loopholes for upper earners, which both sides seem to be interested in considering.
cuts seem to be around 500 billion to each military, medicare, and social security so a total of 1.5 trillion spread out over ten? years.
i expect they will get this deal done, or something very similar to it, before the year ends.
-
as far as i can see both sides are making statements that they are willing to make very modest compromises in order to come to a deal.
president obama has back off his desire to let tax rates increase to the clinton levels on the wealthiest 3%. instead he has proposed meeting halfway between the clinton levels and the bush levels.
the GOP is saying that they are willing to go for the modest tax increase so long as they get spending cuts on medicare and social security.
there is also some talk about closing loopholes for upper earners, which both sides seem to be interested in considering.
cuts seem to be around 500 billion to each military, medicare, and social security so a total of 1.5 trillion spread out over ten? years.
i expect they will get this deal done, or something very similar to it, before the year ends.
just curious where you found this info
-
just curious where you found this info
i saw it on CNN yesterday. but now that i think about it maybe it was only in regards to the estate tax and not the uppr income tax.
-
i saw it on CNN yesterday. but now that i think about it maybe it was only in regards to the estate tax and not the uppr income tax.
I haven't seen anything about them compromising on the income tax part which is why I was wondering
-
yeah thank you for bringing that up because now that i think about it what i saw was about the estate tax and not the income tax rates for people earning 250k.
although i think i did see something about the 350k+ bracket , and obama wanting to compromise in regards a mid point between clinton and bush levels.
either way, i kind of just hope the fiscal cliff hits and all the tax rates go up on everybody and the massive sequestration goe sinto effect as well. thats pretty much what really needs to be done.
-
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/senator-increasingly-clear-obamas-comfortable-going-cliff_664432.html
Ghetto street pimp and dealer o-thug does not want a deal.
-
as far as i can see both sides are making statements that they are willing to make very modest compromises in order to come to a deal.
president obama has back off his desire to let tax rates increase to the clinton levels on the wealthiest 3%. instead he has proposed meeting halfway between the clinton levels and the bush levels.
the GOP is saying that they are willing to go for the modest tax increase so long as they get spending cuts on medicare and social security.
there is also some talk about closing loopholes for upper earners, which both sides seem to be interested in considering.
cuts seem to be around 500 billion to each military, medicare, and social security so a total of 1.5 trillion spread out over ten? years.
i expect they will get this deal done, or something very similar to it, before the year ends.
Is it my imagination or is that % getting gradually HIGHER?
-
hahah so you think spending so much that we will have to raise taxes on everyone to get out of debt is benefiting poor ppl?
There is a time and place to increase taxes but it is not when there is monumental amounts of wasteful spending in the govt that can be cut.
Sorry but I dont agree with taking the hard earned money away from anyone when we can cut wasteful spending in the govt first.
After thats all done then Ill gladly call for tax hikes but until then its idiotic to call for tax hikes before spending cuts.
Its hard to cut spending imagine the political dogfight on were to cut.
-
The tax code has "the rich" paying more taxes than the overwhelming majority of the country. High income earners shoulder the bulk of the tax burden in this country. Nearly half of all income earners don't even pay federal income taxes, and those people are not "the rich."
Also, the "rich" includes numerous small businesses that really are not rich at all.
Of course they pay the most they own the fucking country!!
Its like saying a king pays more than a peasant.
-
since "fair share" is always a judgment call you can't call it a "fact" unless you're saying the statement is in fact a correct representation of your opinion
If you want to talk about actual facts then how about the fact that a recent poll shows that 60% of Americans are in favor of raising taxes on the wealthy (and many other polls have shown this too) http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84319.html
Repubs are going to lose this one but first they are going to bitch and moan and cry like a bunch of 3 year olds who don't want to eat their veggies.
Even a delusional liberal such as yourself has to be able to figure out why this is so dangerous. It's a judgment call made by whom? Largely unaccountable politicians? Suppose that judgment call takes us to where France is--- with a 75% tax rate on top earners.
Using vague, subjective and juvenile proclamations about fairness is an idiotic way to govern. Obama and his ilk use it to reassure stupid people that raising taxes is a good thing, as long as they don't have to pay for it. Of course, that won't end up being the case-- but who's paying attention?
-
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=447769.25#lastPost
as you can see necrosis spending cuts will effect the bottom line much greater than tax hikes or increasing revenue.
So why not put your efforts towards cutting the wasteful/inefficient parts of the govt all around before trying to take away hard earned money away from anyone?
I dont wany anybody to have to give up more money then is needed to run the govt. I think we both can agree that the govt is extremely wasteful and can afford to cut a lot of fat off without effecting employment.
So why not cut that first?
Thats what I dont understand Necrosis, you seem to have deep seated dislike/hatred for "rich" ppl which causes you to want to punish them by taking more of their money.
Why would you rather take hard earned money away from ppl who it rightfully belongs before you cut the fat from the govt?
Tony you are taking money from the middle class and give it to the rich.
Cuts to spending means more private services and more bills for the middle class.
I see your reasoning but fact is that cutting spending will hurt the middle and our military.
Where as raising taxes will only mean the CEO needs to buy a Jaguar and not a Rolls for his wifes christmas present
-
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/senator-increasingly-clear-obamas-comfortable-going-cliff_664432.html
Ghetto street pimp and dealer o-thug does not want a deal.
what offer has the gop made? lol, funny how the only person putting forth deals as was the case previously is the one comfortable going off this cliff. You are delusional.
-
what offer has the gop made? lol, funny how the only person putting forth deals as was the case previously is the one comfortable going off this cliff. You are delusional.
Boehner said to start w Simpson Bowles.
-
Boehner said to start w Simpson Bowles.
Yes this was the first offer.
-
Tony you are taking money from the middle class and give it to the rich.
Cuts to spending means more private services and more bills for the middle class.
I see your reasoning but fact is that cutting spending will hurt the middle and our military.
Where as raising taxes will only mean the CEO needs to buy a Jaguar and not a Rolls for his wifes christmas present
Whork only an idiot thinks that there isnt any govt waste that can be cut without negatively effecting employment.
Sorry bro if you believe there is no waste in govt your tard, you dont then why not cut that out first before taking the money away from ppl who it rightfully belongs?
doesnt it seem unfair to ask private citizens to give more money to a govt that is so wasteful and inefficient?
-
Whork only an idiot thinks that there isnt any govt waste that can be cut without negatively effecting employment.
Sorry bro if you believe there is no waste in govt your tard, you dont then why not cut that out first before taking the money away from ppl who it rightfully belongs?
doesnt it seem unfair to ask private citizens to give more money to a govt that is so wasteful and inefficient?
The GOP offer is to raise the age for Medicare and reduce cost of living increases for Social Security. This shouldn't be a problem for most Getbiggers, since you are all relative youngsters who likely have no concept of what it is like to be a senior citizen. Heck, a lot of you don't even think this will ever happen to you.
Personally, I find it fascinating that the GOP wants to raise the Medicare eligibility age and not SSI eligibility age. One can still retire early at age 62, which is too young for a healthy person, IMO. Currently Medicare eligibility age is 65. For folks who are disabled and on SSD, Medicare is awarded after you are on SSD for two years. Raising the Medicare eligibility age would have no effect on these folks. People who continue to work are likely to have employer provided medical benefits with better coverage than Medicare offers. There shouldn't be a big argument against keeping the Medicare eligibility age consistent with SSI eligibility.
When it comes right down to it, all this talk/proposals is a bunch of smoke and mirrors. Our legislators are acting like children regardless of whether they are Democrats or republicans. We should be insisting that they reach some agreement and quit playing party line games. The fact is that most people's expectations from government programs exceed what they are willing pay for them. -Translation, cut taxes but keep my benefits as they are. It is a formula that simply won't work in the long run. This is one of the reasons our national debt is ever growing.
-
Suppose that judgment call takes us to where France is--- with a 75% tax rate on top earners.
Last time our tax rate was that high, we were experiencing one of the biggest economic booms we have ever had. Didnt seem to harm business then.
-
The GOP offer is to raise the age for Medicare and reduce cost of living increases for Social Security. This shouldn't be a problem for most Getbiggers, since you are all relative youngsters who likely have no concept of what it is like to be a senior citizen. Heck, a lot of you don't even think this will ever happen to you.
Personally, I find it fascinating that the GOP wants to raise the Medicare eligibility age and not SSI eligibility age. One can still retire early at age 62, which is too young for a healthy person, IMO. Currently Medicare eligibility age is 65. For folks who are disabled and on SSD, Medicare is awarded after you are on SSD for two years. Raising the Medicare eligibility age would have no effect on these folks. People who continue to work are likely to have employer provided medical benefits with better coverage than Medicare offers. There shouldn't be a big argument against keeping the Medicare eligibility age consistent with SSI eligibility.
When it comes right down to it, all this talk/proposals is a bunch of smoke and mirrors. Our legislators are acting like children regardless of whether they are Democrats or republicans. We should be insisting that they reach some agreement and quit playing party line games. The fact is that most people's expectations from government programs exceed what they are willing pay for them. -Translation, cut taxes but keep my benefits as they are. It is a formula that simply won't work in the long run. This is one of the reasons our national debt is ever growing.
Thats fine, I didnt mention any particular program...to think that there isnt waste in every govt program though that could be cut and not effect the benefits from that program is plain ignorant.
If you think the govt is a smooth running machine that is extremely efficient please raise your hand b/c Id like to know who to slap first.
you act like cutting benefits to medicare is the end of the world for you. Look at it from the "youngsters" point of view. It likely wont even be there by the time we get old enough to use it. So at least your getting something back for all the money you put in, WERE THE REAL ONES GETTING FUCKED!!!
-
Last time our tax rate was that high, we were experiencing one of the biggest economic booms we have ever had. Didnt seem to harm business then.
No one came close to paying that 75% rate, slick.
-
Thats fine, I didnt mention any particular program...to think that there isnt waste in every govt program though that could be cut and not effect the benefits from that program is plain ignorant.
If you think the govt is a smooth running machine that is extremely efficient please raise your hand b/c Id like to know who to slap first.
you act like cutting benefits to medicare is the end of the world for you. Look at it from the "youngsters" point of view. It likely wont even be there by the time we get old enough to use it. So at least your getting something back for all the money you put in, WERE THE REAL ONES GETTING FUCKED!!!
I absolutely did not act like cutting Medicare benefits would be the end of the world for me. That would be absurd on at least two levels; At 68 years of age, under that proposal, my benefits would not be cut and secondly, I purchase private medical insurance because Medicare doesn't provide me the coverage I want or my wife needs.
Incidentally, I also collect SSI being as how I am retired. Likewise if SSI failed, I have ample other income to survive just fine. Your weak attempt to make this about me, just doesn't wash.
Don't fall for the scare tactics some people employ. Rumors that SSI and Medicare are going under have persisted for years. Not that it couldn't happen of course, but law makers also benefit from these programs and so are very unlikely to let that happen. Before these benefits go bankrupt, there will be changes enacted to stop that happening. However if they do go bust, as you suggest, you will be the real ones getting fucked. I'll likely die of old age before then.
Incidentally, there are no "smooth running machines" either in government or in the private sector at least not on any permanent basis. So, what's your point?
-
Whork only an idiot thinks that there isnt any govt waste that can be cut without negatively effecting employment.
Sorry bro if you believe there is no waste in govt your tard, you dont then why not cut that out first before taking the money away from ppl who it rightfully belongs?
doesnt it seem unfair to ask private citizens to give more money to a govt that is so wasteful and inefficient?
No its not unfair for citizens that have it all to give up some for those that have not.
They arent gonna miss the cash and it will benefit them when the countrys economy is healthy.
The money arent worth much if the country goes bankrupt.
-
Last time our tax rate was that high, we were experiencing one of the biggest economic booms we have ever had. Didnt seem to harm business then.
Tax fraud was rampant.
Also....what time period did those rates exist in?
-
Tax fraud was rampant.
Also....what time period did those rates exist in?
There were also tons more deductions.
-
There were also tons more deductions.
Yup but they werent for the upperclass like now.
-
Why is it that none of the repubs here find it odd that the GOP have offered nothing? the simply want Obama to offer them what they want, doesn't it seem odd?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/02/on-the-fiscal-cliff-republicans-got-nothin.html
I can't see this working out for them.
What you mean offered nothing?? are you kidding? I say let it fall. Obama was going to let it anyway regardless of what plans were offered. He never had any intention of negotiating.
-
What you mean offered nothing?? are you kidding? I say let it fall. Obama was going to let it anyway regardless of what plans were offered. He never had any intention of negotiating.
seems like an odd assertion considering he was the first to offer a proposal.
-
seems like an odd assertion considering he was the first to offer a proposal.
Smoke and mirrors.
-
seems like an odd assertion considering he was the first to offer a proposal.
He didnt offer a damn thing.
-
He didnt offer a damn thing.
Exactly...if they just want to conveniently define a start time, then they can make stupid claims like that.
And Canadian tards will lap it up.
But this has been going on for years. It's just absurd at this point.
-
He didnt offer a damn thing.
He did but he doesnt have to. He gave the repugs the bush tax cuts 2 yrs ago...same thing then. They held it hostage to include the 1%. Well now its time again and americans remember the hostage game and the gloating.
This time THEY need to show theyre cards. The one shown recently is missing alot of the details.....and Americans are quick to notice this time!
-
Thats fine, I didnt mention any particular program...to think that there isnt waste in every govt program though that could be cut and not effect the benefits from that program is plain ignorant.
If you think the govt is a smooth running machine that is extremely efficient please raise your hand b/c Id like to know who to slap first.
you act like cutting benefits to medicare is the end of the world for you. Look at it from the "youngsters" point of view. It likely wont even be there by the time we get old enough to use it. So at least your getting something back for all the money you put in, WERE THE REAL ONES GETTING FUCKED!!!
Can you mention some specific programs?
-
Can you mention some specific programs?
how about 10% off the top of every programs operating expenses?
for some reason you think the govt is run as efficiently as possible and that no money could be squeezed out of it.
It idiotic to think that there isnt waste everywhere in the govt, its unfair to demand that others pay more of their hard earned money when there is waste in the govt that can be cut first.
-
Even a delusional liberal such as yourself has to be able to figure out why this is so dangerous. It's a judgment call made by whom? Largely unaccountable politicians? Suppose that judgment call takes us to where France is--- with a 75% tax rate on top earners.
Using vague, subjective and juvenile proclamations about fairness is an idiotic way to govern. Obama and his ilk use it to reassure stupid people that raising taxes is a good thing, as long as they don't have to pay for it. Of course, that won't end up being the case-- but who's paying attention?
even a delusional neocon or whatever you are should know we're talking about a 3% increase in marginal tax rates (or thereabouts) on AGI > than 250k which would hardly be noticed by anyone making that kind of money and since we've already had these higher tax rates in the 1990's it's not exactly un-chartered territory where we have to guess what might happen.
and yes, deciding "fair share" is a completely subjective thing so saying that the wealthy are paying there fair share and that is "a fact" is not a fact at all
that would be like me saying you are a moron and that's a fact.
As much as I know this is true it's still only my opinion
-
how about 10% off the top of every programs operating expenses?
for some reason you think the govt is run as efficiently as possible and that no money could be squeezed out of it.
It idiotic to think that there isnt waste everywhere in the govt, its unfair to demand that others pay more of their hard earned money when there is waste in the govt that can be cut first.
Of course there is waste there always will be.
If you want to fix all waste(impossible) before you raise taxes, there will never again be raised taxes but i suspect this is want you want all along ;)