Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: blacken700 on June 09, 2012, 07:28:53 AM
-
-
He is 100000000000000% correct. I am liking him more every day with statements like this.
The fact of the matter is that the private sector is not producing or growing enough to pay for public sector workers and their ridiculous pay and benefits packages.
-
1) he is correct
2) saying things like this will cost him votes and peel away at his numbers.
If your dad is a cop, how do you vote? If your uncle died firefighting, how do you vote? If you are a teacher, this solidifies your obama vote.
he's correct, but saying things like this (to suck up to the repub base) dont play well with hard working middle class moderates. tough spot.
-
1) he is correct
2) saying things like this will cost him votes and peel away at his numbers.
If your dad is a cop, how do you vote? If your uncle died firefighting, how do you vote? If you are a teacher, this solidifies your obama vote.
he's correct, but saying things like this (to suck up to the repub base) dont play well with hard working middle class moderates. tough spot.
What die hard incompetent communists like blacken and obama dont grasp is that states and localities are forced to balance their books and can't use the Fed and other scams to finance spending. They are forced to finance spending based upon tax receipts.
The fact is that tax receipts are not growing to keep paying for more govt workers.
-
What die hard incompetent communists like blacken and obama dont grasp is that states and localities are forced to balance their books and can't use the Fed and other scams to finance spending. They are forced to finance spending based upon tax receipts.
The fact is that tax receipts are not growing to keep paying for more govt workers.
romney is correct. and if a billionaire hadnt bought SC for newt, the race would have ended 2 months earlier, and he wouldn't have had to take such extreme positions so late in the game.
SuperPACs may be blamed, if Mitt loses in 2012. They allows 3 or 4 people to extend a race by months, and really cause mitt to lose money making time, and alienate voters. Santorum would have been history 5 minutes after Iowa, Newt no chance... mitt would have been campaigning against obama since march.
Now we're in June and he's just getting started, with the convention only 7 weeks away? Yikes.
SuperPacs are the problem... Mitt has to be TOO honest and admit he'll be chopping up police, firefighters, teachers - something neither mccain or obama was dumb enough to do in 2008. But he had the whole walker/christie movement, you know, it's cool to shout down people and talk about beating down anyone who demands a salary, etc.
Well, this is the system they wanted - they got it now.
-
What die hard incompetent communists like blacken and obama dont grasp is that states and localities are forced to balance their books and can't use the Fed and other scams to finance spending. They are forced to finance spending based upon tax receipts.
The fact is that tax receipts are not growing to keep paying for more govt workers.
some of us in the u.s. live in nice neighborhoods and like to have enough police and fireman,not all of us live in crime ridden ghettos where it makes no difference
-
some of us in the u.s. live in nice neighborhoods and like to have enough police and fireman,not all of us live in crime ridden ghettos where it makes no difference
the majority of us are also employed by the private sector and know that the private sector isnt doing fine.
We also know that the answer to a better economy doesnt lie in more govt spending and govt workers.
you think more govt workers is going to get us out of this shit?
-
i agree but some workers you can't skimp on, fireman and police being two of them
-
i agree but some workers you can't skimp on, fireman and police being two of them
I can agree with that as long as there arent excessive numbers, not skimping on them is not going to help the economy get out of the funk its in though.
and for anyone to say that the private sector is fine and the answer to getting the economy back on track is hiring govt workers is retarded
-
Romney will have to stand on national TV and tell the cameras two things:
1) We don't need more cops, firefighters, ,firefighters.
and
2) We do need to give larger tax cuts to people making over $1mil per year.
Now, if you're a new florida teacher, in the midst of a hiring freeze, how do you support this?
-
Romney will have to stand on national TV and tell the cameras two things:
1) We don't need more cops, firefighters, ,firefighters.
and
2) We do need to give larger tax cuts to people making over $1mil per year.
Now, if you're a new florida teacher, in the midst of a hiring freeze, how do you support this?
you don't because you are probably liberal demo anyway. ;)
-
you don't because you are probably liberal demo anyway. ;)
is it about me? Or the florida swing voters?
he has a shitload of really far-right positions to defend. Thanks to superPACs. it's undeniable.
-
romneys vision of fire departments if he's elected
-
Most areas are volunteer fire houses. Why can't you communist leftists understand we are broke?
-
Romney will have to stand on national TV and tell the cameras two things:
1) We don't need more cops, firefighters, ,firefighters.
and
2) We do need to give larger tax cuts to people making over $1mil per year.
Now, if you're a new florida teacher, in the midst of a hiring freeze, how do you support this?
yup and obama will have to stand there and tell the ppl.
that the private sector is doing just fine and the key to getting the economy going again is more govt workers with unfunded pensions and more govt spending on social programs.
-
Couldn't agree more, that's good!
-
some of us in the u.s. live in nice neighborhoods and like to have enough police and fireman,not all of us live in crime ridden ghettos where it makes no difference
People in nice neighborhoods never ever use the police, fire, and amulance service that they themselves are paying out the ass for.
The police, fire and ambulance are responding to addresses within the ghetto 24/7.
-
People in nice neighborhoods never ever use the police, fire, and amulance service that they themselves are paying out the ass for.
The police, fire and ambulance are responding to addresses within the ghetto 24/7.
Really? how do you know this?
-
some of us in the u.s. live in nice neighborhoods and like to have enough police and fireman,not all of us live in crime ridden ghettos where it makes no difference
You can say that, but what he says is true. Govt is just like a business, with taxes beIng the revenue. If you don't have revenue being higher than expense, you go in the red. People don't understand that. The morons say "print more money". That does shit if there is nothing to back it.
-
He's absolutley correct.
More government employees means that much more tax revenue to pay for them. Their funding comes from where - the private sector.
Public sector jobs depend on private sector funding. Its all relative. The answer is not to increase the public sector when the private sector is hurting, that's bass-ackwards logic.
-
He's right. He's not saying we don't hire public employees that we need, but we cannot keep expanding state and federal governments. We're friggin broke.
Check out the Fred Barnes article 33 posted. Right on point.
-
we're broke - BUT - people making more than $1mil per year need new tax cuts.
Sorry, but no. They have the bush tax cuts and they're not investing in US mnfg - they're buying precious metals and building Apple plants in china. You're telling me Apple needs more tax cuts. go fuck a duck.
-
I think we should shut down public education. It's communism.
-
we're broke - BUT - people making more than $1mil per year need new tax cuts.
Sorry, but no. They have the bush tax cuts and they're not investing in US mnfg - they're buying precious metals and building Apple plants in china. You're telling me Apple needs more tax cuts. go fuck a duck.
everyone needs a tax cut!!!
the govt needs to cut spending, not increase it like you and obama want to do!!!
-
everyone needs a tax cut!!!
the govt needs to cut spending, not increase it like you and obama want to do!!!
paul ryan's tax plan doesn't give EVERYONE a tax cut though. He think you give a bigger break to millionaires, they'll put the $ back into the US economy.
They're not doing it now. They're buying gold and silver and putting plants for mnfg onthe other hemisphere. Ryan sucks up to millionaire donors, that's what this is. Romney HAD to endorse the plan, even though he ran from that first version of it. Santorum farced his hand - now he has to stay with it. Give $1mil earners a tax break but not everyone else. Good luck selling that. SuperPAC fault.
-
Really? how do you know this?
I have a police scanner, read police briefs, etc...
At least 90 percent of calls are difficulty breathing, stomach pains, chest pains, or some kind of assault, all in the lowest income areas of town. 5 percent more are calls for smoke detectors going off in one of the taxpayer subsidized projects.
Growing up we never called the police, fire, or ambulance and as far as I know they were never called anywhere in my neighborhood, except for a couple car wrecks and a house fire. (Normal, middle class area).
My grandpa lives in a neighborhood just like Walt on Gran Torino (decent area 20 years ago, now inundated with rental properties). Go visit him, and you can sit on the porch and watch police, and fire race back and forth like it's an episode of cops.
-
everyone needs a tax cut!!!
the govt needs to cut spending, not increase it like you and obama want to do!!!
Correct. And those "rich" people liberals keep attacking include small business owners who drive the economy through job creation. I think November should show how much the public dislikes class warfare.
-
Correct. And those "rich" people liberals keep attacking include small business owners who drive the economy through job creation. I think November should show how much the public dislikes class warfare.
Right. Trickle down economics worked under Reagan and both Bushes, then Clinton came a long and crashed the economy.
Not extending = raising.
If things aren't balanced on the backs of the working and the poor, and anyone points it out, that's "class warfare".
Did I miss anything?
-
Right. Trickle down economics worked under Reagan and both Bushes, then Clinton came a long and crashed the economy.
Not extending = raising.
If things aren't balanced on the backs of the working and the poor, and anyone points it out, that's "class warfare".
Did I miss anything?
You missed quite a bit. "The poor" don't pay income taxes. Everyone in the workforce "works."
Class warfare is piiting one group against another. It's demonizing success. It's telling the lie that "the rich" don't pay their fair share; that raising taxes will fix the economy. We're all in this together.
The fact is private sector business drives the economy and small business accounts for a substantial part of that growth. Trying to punish them will not get us out if this mess.
We spend too much friggin money. That's the problem.
-
Romney will have to stand on national TV and tell the cameras two things:
1) We don't need more cops, firefighters, ,firefighters.
and
2) We do need to give larger tax cuts to people making over $1mil per year.
Now, if you're a new florida teacher, in the midst of a hiring freeze, how do you support this?
Is the answer "you don't support it, you demand that the struggling private sector employees give you even more of their ever-decreasing-in-purchasing-power income and vote for the other guy just like you'll continue to do until someone running for office finally has the balls to stop pandering to the selfish morons like you -who join OWS and protest against economic inequalities...as long as YOU get to keep every unaffordable benefit you can suck from the public teet?"
-
paul ryan's tax plan doesn't give EVERYONE a tax cut though. He think you give a bigger break to millionaires, they'll put the $ back into the US economy.
They're not doing it now. They're buying gold and silver and putting plants for mnfg onthe other hemisphere. Ryan sucks up to millionaire donors, that's what this is. Romney HAD to endorse the plan, even though he ran from that first version of it. Santorum farced his hand - now he has to stay with it. Give $1mil earners a tax break but not everyone else. Good luck selling that. SuperPAC fault.
so you believe the answer is taxing the "rich" and employing more govt workers?
LMFAO!!!
-
so you believe the answer is taxing the "rich" and employing more govt workers?
LMFAO!!!
stop making assumptions.
I have already agreed romney is right that we don't need more of these public jobs.
I disagree with him that we need tax cuts for those making $1mil or more.
He's half-right.
So please don't just make up positions for me. I pointed out in 2008 that no candidate usually admits WHICH items they'll cut, as that results in instant loss of voting blocs.
-
stop making assumptions.
I have already agreed romney is right that we don't need more of these public jobs.
I disagree with him that we need tax cuts for those making $1mil or more.
He's half-right.
So please don't just make up positions for me. I pointed out in 2008 that no candidate usually admits WHICH items they'll cut, as that results in instant loss of voting blocs.
LOL if it bothers you so much, why do you do it so much?
so if we arent hiring new workers and we can all agree that govt spending needs to be cut, why do we need to raise taxes again?
-
LOL if it bothers you so much, why do you do it so much?
so if we arent hiring new workers and we can all agree that govt spending needs to be cut, why do we need to raise taxes again?
where did I say we need to RAISE taxes?
What you smoking on? I'm fine with leaving bush tax cuts in place, they were good enough for rich ppl in the 2000s, and so good in fact that the owners of companies shipped jobs overseas and put all the $ they saved into foreign currency and precious metals.
So how about we 1) leave taxes alone 2) don't give breaks to those making $1mil and 3) don't hire new police, fd, and teachers?
Are we in agreement there?
-
where did I say we need to RAISE taxes?
What you smoking on? I'm fine with leaving bush tax cuts in place, they were good enough for rich ppl in the 2000s, and so good in fact that the owners of companies shipped jobs overseas and put all the $ they saved into foreign currency and precious metals.
So how about we 1) leave taxes alone 2) don't give breaks to those making $1mil and 3) don't hire new police, fd, and teachers?
Are we in agreement there?
LOL no, how about we cut spending and cut taxes for EVERYONE!!!
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
The End Nears for a 50-Year Mistake (public sector unions)
Townhall ^ | 6-10-2012 | Jeff Jacoby
Posted on June 10, 2012 8:39:15 PM EDT by smoothsailing
June 10, 2012
The End Nears for a 50-Year Mistake
Jeff Jacoby
In retrospect, there were two conspicuous giveaways that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker was headed for victory in last week's recall election.
One was that the Democrats' campaign against him wound up focusing on just about everything but Walker's law limiting collective bargaining rights for government workers. Sixteen months ago, the Capitol building in Madison was besieged by rioting protesters hell-bent on blocking the changes by any means necessary. Union members and their supporters, incandescent with rage, likened Walker to Adolf Hitler and cheered as Democratic lawmakers fled the state in a bid to force the legislature to a standstill. Once the bill passed, unions and Democrats vowed revenge, and amassed a million signatures on recall petitions.
But the more voters saw of the law's effects, the more they liked it. Dozens of school districts reported millions in savings, most without resorting to layoffs. Property taxes fell. A $3.6 billion state budget deficit turned into a $154 million projected surplus. Walker's measures proved a tonic for the economy, and support for restoring the status quo ante faded -- even among Wisconsin Democrats. Long before Election Day, Democratic challenger Tom Barrett had all but dropped the issue of public-sector collective bargaining from his campaign to replace Walker.
The second harbinger was the plunge in public-employee union membership. The most important of Walker's reforms, the change Big Labor had fought most bitterly, was ending the automatic withholding of union dues. That made union membership a matter of choice, not compulsion -- and tens of thousands of government workers chose to toss their union cards. More than one-third of the American Federation of Teachers Wisconsin membership quit, reported The Wall Street Journal. At the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, one of the state's largest unions, the hemorrhaging was worse: AFSCME's Wisconsin rolls shrank by more than 34,000 over the past year, a 55 percent nose-dive.
Did government workers tear up their union cards solely because the union had lost its right to bargain collectively on their behalf? That's doubtful: Even under the new law, unions still negotiate over salaries. More likely, public-sector employees ditched their unions for the same reasons so many employees in the private sector -- which is now less than 7 percent unionized -- have done so. Many never wanted to join a union in the first place. Others were repelled by the authoritarian, belligerent, and left-wing political culture that entrenched unionism so often embodies.
Even before the votes in Wisconsin were cast, observed Michael Barone last week, Democrats and public-employee unions "had already lost the battle of ideas over the issue that sparked the recall." Their tantrums and slanders didn't just fail to intimidate Walker and Wisconsin lawmakers from reining in public-sector collective bargaining. They also gave the public a good hard look at what government unionism is apt to descend to. The past 16 months amounted to an extended seminar on the danger of combining collective bargaining with government jobs. Voters watched -- and learned.
There was a time when pro-labor political leaders like Franklin D. Roosevelt and Fiorello LaGuardia regarded it as obvious that collective bargaining was incompatible with public employment. Even the legendary AFL-CIO leader George Meany once took it for granted that there could be no "right" to bargain collectively with the government.
When unions bargain with management in the private sector, both sides are contending for a share of the private profits that labor helps produce -- and both sides are constrained by the pressures of market discipline. Managers can't ignore the company's bottom line. Unions know that if they demand too much they may cost the company its competitive edge.
But when labor and management bargain in the public sector, they are divvying up public funds, not private profits. Government bureaucrats don't have to worry about losing business to their competitors; state agencies can't relocate to another part of the country. There is little incentive to hold down wages and benefits, since the taxpayers who will be picking up the tab have no seat at the table. On the other hand, government managers have a powerful motivation to yield to government unions: Union members vote, and their votes can be deployed to reward politicians who give them what they want -- or punish those who don't.
In 1959, when Wisconsin became the first state to enact a public-sector collective-bargaining law, it wasn't widely understood what the distorted incentives of government unionism would lead to. Five decades later, the wreckage is all around us. The privileges that come with government work -- hefty automatic pay raises, Cadillac pension plans, iron-clad job security, ultra-deluxe health insurance -- have in many cases grown outlandish and staggeringly unaffordable. What Keith Geiger, the former head of the National Education Association, once referred to as "our sledgehammer, the collective bargaining process," has wreaked havoc on state and municipal budgets nationwide.
Now, at long last, the pendulum has reversed. The 50-year mistake of public-sector unions is being corrected. Walker's victory is a heartening reminder that in a democracy, even the most entrenched bad ideas can sometimes be unentrenched. On, Wisconsin!
Jeff Jacoby
Jeff Jacoby is an Op-Ed writer for the Boston Globe, a radio political commentator, and a contributing columnist for Townhall.com.
-
You missed quite a bit. "The poor" don't pay income taxes. Everyone in the workforce "works."
Class warfare is piiting one group against another. It's demonizing success. It's telling the lie that "the rich" don't pay their fair share; that raising taxes will fix the economy. We're all in this together.
The fact is private sector business drives the economy and small business accounts for a substantial part of that growth. Trying to punish them will not get us out if this mess.
We spend too much friggin money. That's the problem.
lol...*crickets*
-
i heard toinght something like 250,000 teachers have lost their jobs in the last 2 years.
I can't imagine any of them agree with romney that we don't need more teachers.
-
Firefighters and police generally make way too much money anyway with their fat pensions, healthcare, and excessive overtime. Their jobs aren't as difficult or heroic as you may think. Government needs to be more in line with what a comparable employee makes in the private sector with similar healthcare and retirement options.
-
City Pays Public Safety Officers Nearly Twice Residents' Incomes, Repeatedly Requests Tax Hikes
Michigan Capitol Confidential ^ | 6/10/2012 | Tom Gantert
Posted on Tuesday, June 12, 2012 12:55:38 PM by MichCapCon
The average salary of Oak Park Public Safety employees was $86,050 in fiscal year 2010-11, far more than the median household income of $48,476.
To help pay those salaries, residents in the city of about 29,000 have twice in the last two years approved tax increases for the Public Safety department. Voters were told previously that the overall city work force was "cut by about a third in the last four years," but an analysis by Capitol Confidential showed that to be false.
Yet, 11 of the 63 members of the public safety department made $100,000 or more in the fiscal year 2010-11. A sergeant who grossed $152,606 was the highest paid in the department.
"Things like this are why Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker defeated a government-employee recall attempt by a large margin," said Jack McHugh, legislative policy analyst for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. "This is an example of government employees collecting benefits that far exceed anything that most of the private sector neighbors get."
On Feb. 22, 2011, Oak Park residents approved a 1-mill millage that runs through 2020. Then on May 8, voters approved another 1.14 mill millage that runs through 2021.
Oak Park Mayor Marian McClellan and City Manager Rick Fox didn’t return emails seeking comment.
________________________ ________________________ _____________________
This is why Mittens is going to landslide Barack Obamadashian. People are sick of the govt. employee union thugs.
-
Can someone explain why the sudden need to go out and hire more firemen??
-
Illinois state worker faked triplets to get extra food stamps
Michael Berry ^ | 6/12/2012 | Michael Berry
An Illinois caseworker who fabricated triplets so her boyfriend could receive extra food stamps was Monday sentenced to 30 days in jail.
Ebony Martin, 34, was employed at the Illinois Department of Human Services when she created a phony state file for her boyfriend, 38-year-old Keith Jones, the Chicago Sun-Times reported.
In it she provided the names and Social Security numbers of fictitious triplets so Jones could receive more government food assistance, prosecutors said.
(Excerpt) Read more at michaelberry.iheart.com ...
-
i heard toinght something like 250,000 teachers have lost their jobs in the last 2 years.
I can't imagine any of them agree with romney that we don't need more teachers.
Uh what? We have 250,000 teachers who aren't employed. If they are needed they will find work in their chosen field.
There is a pool of 250k teachers in this country with many thousands more coming out of college..............we have enough teachers.
Christ almighty.
-
we have enough teachers.
Christ almighty.
cracked me up.......
;D
my fat cousin is interested in teaching........... spend eight hours a day with shitty ass, germy, snot nosed kids that hate you and talk shit about you...
No thanks....
-
Holy shit. I just read this thread and 33 and beachbum still have the tunnelvision of a fat kid in a candy store.
240 spelled it out 3 or 4 times for you idiots and you still went back to "So you want more govt employees"!!!!
Wheres the balance on this board? Only a few here can look past limbaughs bullshit rants and see the middle road...something that works for everyone..GOOD GAWD. ::)
-
Holy shit. I just read this thread and 33 and beachbum still have the tunnelvision of a fat kid in a candy store.
240 spelled it out 3 or 4 times for you idiots and you still went back to "So you want more govt employees"!!!!
Wheres the balance on this board? Only a few here can look past limbaughs bullshit rants and see the middle road...something that works for everyone..GOOD GAWD. ::)
Its called reality moron.
If the states are broke and cant afford existing obligations, you think the answer is to go deeper in debt to pay for public sector workers?
GMAFB
-
cracked me up.......
;D
my fat cousin is interested in teaching........... spend eight hours a day with shitty ass, germy, snot nosed kids that hate you and talk shit about you...
No thanks....
I have my teaching certificate in a file cabinet somewhere in my house...I was cut years ago, got a job in sales and never looked back. Teaching isn't easy, but it's easy for a shitty teacher to get a job and keep it.
The current public education system is hostile to open minds, free thinking, education and good teachers. Count me out.
-
Rudy would have NEVER said "we don't need more firefighters or police" lol.
Obama attacking him because he doesn't want to hire more FIRST RESPONDERS.
What a stupid thing to say. First he says we don't need more - THEN he laughs it off by saying it's a state/local thing anyway, doesn't affect president.
he criticizes Obama for wanting more police, firefighters, teachers - THEN he pretends it has nothing to do with presidency anyway.
He can't have it both way - scoring points off obama for it, then pretending it's not a presidential task anyway. it's like making fun of a girl for being a whore, then laughing at her for sill being a virgin.
-
I have my teaching certificate in a file cabinet somewhere in my house...I was cut years ago, got a job in sales and never looked back. Teaching isn't easy, but it's easy for a shitty teacher to get a job and keep it.
The current public education system is hostile to open minds, free thinking, education and good teachers. Count me out.
I probably have a bad image of teaching/teachers because of the Public School System in my area. I should take pictures of my old High School, you guys would probably think it was some abandoned prison or something.
-
The funny part is that Romney pointed to Wisconsin as the example in order to defend his remarks and yet even the Governor of Wisconsin doesn't agrew with Romney on this and has said so publicy
-
Right. Trickle down economics worked under Reagan and both Bushes, then Clinton came a long and crashed the economy.
Not extending = raising.
If things aren't balanced on the backs of the working and the poor, and anyone points it out, that's "class warfare".
Did I miss anything?
No you got it
Right wing economics one-on-one
-
Holy shit. I just read this thread and 33 and beachbum still have the tunnelvision of a fat kid in a candy store.
240 spelled it out 3 or 4 times for you idiots and you still went back to "So you want more govt employees"!!!!
Wheres the balance on this board? Only a few here can look past limbaughs bullshit rants and see the middle road...something that works for everyone..GOOD GAWD. ::)
And the guy is a Moderator go figure
-
Wait....
If the govt. isn't keeping in place the current tax rates and will instead let them "Expire".....tax rates go up, right?
Sounds like a tax hike to me.
-
Wait....
If the govt. isn't keeping in place the current tax rates and will instead let them "Expire".....tax rates go up, right?
Sounds like a tax hike to me.
McDonalds can issue a coupon which gives 50% off cheeseburgers.
When the coupon expires, does mcdonalds raise prices? of course not. Menu still the same.
They just stop offering certain specials to certain people.
I love it how repubs won the bush tax cuts for 6 years or whatever, and suddenly they're ENTITLED to it forever. I though only dems were into that entitlement thing, and repubs owned victimhood?
-
McDonalds can issue a coupon which gives 50% off cheeseburgers.
When the coupon expires, does mcdonalds raise prices? of course not. Menu still the same.
They just stop offering certain specials to certain people.
I love it how repubs won the bush tax cuts for 6 years or whatever, and suddenly they're ENTITLED to it forever. I though only dems were into that entitlement thing, and repubs owned victimhood?
No. The tax cuts weren't coupons for cheeseburgers offered at McDonald's. Not a good example.
These are tax hikes. If Obama lets the payroll tax cut expire, that's a tax hike as my taxes increase. If the "Bush Tax Cuts" are left to expire, my taxes go up, thus it's a tax hike.
It is a dumb semantic argument, but our taxes will go way up, thus it's a tax hike. Pretending it isn't a tax hike, spinning really bad semantic arguments and the like doesn't magically make my taxes not go up when these provisions are cut.
Period.
-
McDonalds can issue a coupon which gives 50% off cheeseburgers.
When the coupon expires, does mcdonalds raise prices? of course not. Menu still the same.
They just stop offering certain specials to certain people.
I love it how repubs won the bush tax cuts for 6 years or whatever, and suddenly they're ENTITLED to it forever. I though only dems were into that entitlement thing, and repubs owned victimhood?
The repub's whole purpose is to give tax breaks to the rich who dont need it and send the poor of to die in wars, all behind words like freedom and patriotism.
-
No. The tax cuts weren't coupons for cheeseburgers offered at McDonald's. Not a good example.
These are tax hikes. If Obama lets the payroll tax cut expire, that's a tax hike as my taxes increase. If the "Bush Tax Cuts" are left to expire, my taxes go up, thus it's a tax hike.
It is a dumb semantic argument, but our taxes will go way up, thus it's a tax hike. Pretending it isn't a tax hike, spinning really bad semantic arguments and the like doesn't magically make my taxes not go up when these provisions are cut.
Period.
In taht case,
When Bush let the Brady Bill Assault weapons ban EXPIRE, was he "granting Americans new gun rights"?
No. He was simply returning them to where they were before Clinton restricted them in 94.
Bush did NOTHING and rights improved.
Just as Obama does NOTHING and lets the bill expire, and wealth goes down.
The effect sucks, but calling it a "hike" - you'd have to say Bush "hiked" or increased gun rights. He did nothing. A bill expired and he didn't act.
-
The repub's whole purpose is to give tax breaks to the rich who dont need it and send the poor of to die in wars, all behind words like freedom and patriotism.
Why would I? im not Obamas spin master.
-
In taht case,
When Bush let the Brady Bill Assault weapons ban EXPIRE, was he "granting Americans new gun rights"?
No. He was simply returning them to where they were before Clinton restricted them in 94.
Bush did NOTHING and rights improved.
Just as Obama does NOTHING and lets the bill expire, and wealth goes down.
The effect sucks, but calling it a "hike" - you'd have to say Bush "hiked" or increased gun rights. He did nothing. A bill expired and he didn't act.
I dare you to read this post again and not laugh at yourself. HEHEHEHE!!
-
I dare you to read this post again and not laugh at yourself. HEHEHEHE!!
I agree it's pretty shitty for obama to let them expire - although one could argue they've had a decade with these breaks, and they've moved jobs overseas, bought yen and gold with the tax $.
They've had the extra $. They're hoarding it. They're not building US mnfg or other industiries. They're putting up plants in CHina.
So really, I've said it for years - YES extend the Bush tax cuts - but ONLY to those components of businesses that keep the work IN THE USA. If 45% of your business takes place on US soil with US workers, then you enjoy 45% of the potential maximum bush tax cut benefits.
Watch how fast they bring business back to the USA. Stop rewarding the ccuunnttss who take the bush tax cuts to buy foreign currency and move jobs overseas.
-
In taht case,
When Bush let the Brady Bill Assault weapons ban EXPIRE, was he "granting Americans new gun rights"?
No. He was simply returning them to where they were before Clinton restricted them in 94.
Bush did NOTHING and rights improved.
Just as Obama does NOTHING and lets the bill expire, and wealth goes down.
The effect sucks, but calling it a "hike" - you'd have to say Bush "hiked" or increased gun rights. He did nothing. A bill expired and he didn't act.
Another poor example.
This isn't about assault rifle availability or cheeseburgers or whatever, it's about our taxes going up.
After all is said and done you have to ask the question: "Did our taxes go up?" The answer will be, "YES".
-
oh, so NET EFFECT is all that matters - not the actions or inacitons of the president?
-
oh, so NET EFFECT is all that matters - not the actions or inacitons of the president?
Youre attempts at trolling are getting sad.
If youre actually serious... well... :-\
-
oh, so NET EFFECT is all that matters - not the actions or inacitons of the president?
I pay 20% in taxes and 6 months from now I pay 35% in taxes. That's a tax increase.
If The Pres/Congress haggle and bitch and the current tax rates expire, well, they go up. Hence and tax hike.
Cheeseburgers and assault rifles are terrible examples to use when comparing to tax rates. I don't have to buy a cheeseburger from McDonald's and I don't have to buy an assault rifle, not now, not tomorrow and not every paycheck.
What I do have to do every payday is pay my taxes and if I don't I am hunted down and penalized. Taxes aren't voluntary.
-
the EFFECT is a tax increase. But it's not the ACTION of obama that caused it.
Congress introduced and approved a SHORT TERM tax CUT bill.
THey could have intro'd a 10-year bill. They didn't. it was a short-term special. it wasn't the new standard baseline level. It was a cut, a temporary reduciton by definition.
-
the EFFECT is a tax increase. But it's not the ACTION of obama that caused it.
Congress introduced and approved a SHORT TERM tax CUT bill.
THey could have intro'd a 10-year bill. They didn't. it was a short-term special. it wasn't the new standard baseline level. It was a cut, a temporary reduciton by definition.
::)
Wow! So no tax increase? So when these bills and rates expire my tax bill won't go up!?!?!?!?!? WOW!
-
Yes?
-
::)
Wow! So no tax increase? So when these bills and rates expire my tax bill won't go up!?!?!?!?!? WOW!
tax increase is the effect. the cause? Repub and dems in congress signed a short-term bill.
it's obama's fault the repub's okay'd a short-term bill?
-
tax increase is the effect. the cause? Repub and dems in congress signed a short-term bill.
it's obama's fault the repub's okay'd a short-term bill?
Oh man....
Just forget it.
-
The fact is that the same tax rates have been in place for 10 YEARS! And no the tax cuts are not the cause of the deficit now since for most of bush' presidency, the deficit was not nearly as bad as it is now. The issue is SPENDING!
-
Can't we all just agree that this will an election of 2 TURDS?
-
Where I live, when there is a little fender bender, you have 3 cop cars, two firetrucks, 2 paramedics all showing up. Its INSANE.
We do not need more cops. That is the LAST thing we need.
-
Can't we all just agree that this will an election of 2 TURDS?
Of course it is... but we certainly don't need MORE cops.
That's a true statement.
-
spending is the problem. but neitehr candidate is going to reign that in.
-
spending is the problem. but neitehr candidate is going to reign that in.
Absolutely 100 percent true.
-
spending is the problem. but neitehr candidate is going to reign that in.
Obama is running on spending more.
Romney is running on cutting.
Lets give romney a chance we know obama wont and romney is promising to do so.
If he doesnt, we vote his ass out in 2016.
Makes sense no?
-
Obama is running on spending more.
Romney is running on cutting.
Lets give romney a chance we know obama wont and romney is promising to do so.
If he doesnt, we vote his ass out in 2016.
Makes sense no?
I like it, but you know he's gonna spend.
-
I like it, but you know he's gonna spend.
I already said i give him a 50% - 85% chance of sucking ass. I am voting for the 15% chance he will be ok.
-
I already said i give him a 50% - 85% chance of sucking ass. I am voting for the 15% chance he will be ok.
so......you are voting for a 15% chance of success............. we suck.
-
so......you are voting for a 15% chance of success............. we suck.
It is what it is.
-
so......you are voting for a 15% chance of success............. we suck.
It is what it is.
I spit some coffee out when I read these....
This perfectly sums up the current American political landscape and voter apathy.
-
Of course it is... but we certainly don't need MORE cops.
That's a true statement.
Yup. I had a discussion with my wife about this and even my brother in law who is a "up the chain of command" in a police department.
We all agreed, it's not about having more police everywhere, instead, it's how you do the policing.
-
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
-
the EFFECT is a tax increase. But it's not the ACTION of obama that caused it.
Congress introduced and approved a SHORT TERM tax CUT bill.
THey could have intro'd a 10-year bill. They didn't. it was a short-term special. it wasn't the new standard baseline level. It was a cut, a temporary reduciton by definition.
240. where do you get the patience to talk to these idiots like gigantor? I see you try every angle in the book for him to see that it NEVER WAS A BASELINE and he thinks its a taxhike. Like he said dumbasses.....mcdonalds doesnt give you a 50% off coupon to use for eternity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is a temporary thing.......good lord 240 said he was a teacher right? that must be where he gets his patience.
-
240. where do you get the patience to talk to these idiots like gigantor? I see you try every angle in the book for him to see that it NEVER WAS A BASELINE and he thinks its a taxhike. Like he said dumbasses.....mcdonalds doesnt give you a 50% off coupon to use for eternity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is a temporary thing.......good lord 240 said he was a teacher right? that must be where he gets his patience.
I would assume that you would be in the minority with that assertion, pal.
Next time, grow set a balls and address me directly like every other poster on this board is capable of doing whether we agree on issues or not.
Do you lack the necessary mental acuity to have a logical argument? Using your post as evidence, I would assume that you do.
By all means, prove me wrong.
And I'm sorry, temporary, to me at least, is a year, a month, a few weeks. You don't pass a law to lower tax rates for a 8-10 years or more and, when you let that law expire, not call it a tax hike. If it was for 20 years and the law was left expire would you still consider it not a tax hike? I see where 240 is arguing from, but I disagree. I believe we both laid out arguments and neither one of us will change the others mind. That's fine.
-
I would assume that you would be in the minority with that assertion, pal.
Next time, grow set a balls and address me directly like every other poster on this board is capable of doing whether we agree on issues or not.
Do you lack the necessary mental acuity to have a logical argument? Using your post as evidence, I would assume that you do.
By all means, prove me wrong.
And I'm sorry, temporary, to me at least, is a year, a month, a few weeks. You don't pass a law to lower tax rates for a 8-10 years or more and, when you let that law expire, not call it a tax hike. If it was for 20 years and the law was left expire would you still consider it not a tax hike? I see where 240 is arguing from, but I disagree. I believe we both laid out arguments and neither one of us will change the others mind. That's fine.
Ill address any mental midget like you, however I want. I may even let others do the addressing as I spent years here trying to do what your doing.
And no its not a tax hike. Its the end of the contract. Very simple.
-
Ill address any mental midget like you, however I want. I may even let others do the addressing as I spent years here trying to do what your doing.
And no its not a tax hike. Its the end of the contract. Very simple.
then why does obama and the dems call the increase on student loans rates a "rate hike"?
-
Ill address any mental midget like you, however I want. I may even let others do the addressing as I spent years here trying to do what your doing.
And no its not a tax hike. Its the end of the contract. Very simple.
1.)What am I trying to do here?
2.)It's the expiration of a law, fine, but when that law expires our taxes go up. Hence the term "Tax hike". To clarify, I'm not saying that a politician is actually writing a law to raise our taxes, I'm simply saying that an existing law will be expiring and because of it our taxes will be raised.
I think this is a case of 6 of one, half dozen of another.
-
1.)What am I trying to do here?
2.)It's the expiration of a law, fine, but when that law expires our taxes go up. Hence the term "Tax hike". To clarify, I'm not saying that a politician is actually writing a law to raise our taxes, I'm simply saying that an existing law will be expiring and because of it our taxes will be raised.
I think this is a case of 6 of one, half dozen of another.
NONSENSE, when dems want to extend the bill(even though reps want to as well) its a tax hike
when the reps want to extend the bill its just an expiration and going back to normal rates.
you have to look at it through the eyes of a liberal!!!
-
I would assume that you would be in the minority with that assertion, pal.
Next time, grow set a balls and address me directly like every other poster on this board is capable of doing whether we agree on issues or not.
Do you lack the necessary mental acuity to have a logical argument? Using your post as evidence, I would assume that you do.
By all means, prove me wrong.
And I'm sorry, temporary, to me at least, is a year, a month, a few weeks. You don't pass a law to lower tax rates for a 8-10 years or more and, when you let that law expire, not call it a tax hike. If it was for 20 years and the law was left expire would you still consider it not a tax hike? I see where 240 is arguing from, but I disagree. I believe we both laid out arguments and neither one of us will change the others mind. That's fine.
Yes he's in the minority.
-
1.)What am I trying to do here?
2.)It's the expiration of a law, fine, but when that law expires our taxes go up. Hence the term "Tax hike". To clarify, I'm not saying that a politician is actually writing a law to raise our taxes, I'm simply saying that an existing law will be expiring and because of it our taxes will be raised.
I think this is a case of 6 of one, half dozen of another.
Yeah, I think you guys are arguing semantics, although I tend to agree with you. If a law is passed lowering taxes for a long period of time, and then the law expires, IMHO, its a tax hike.
If it was a very short term thing (Say a couple months), then I would agree with War Horse.
-
Yeah, I think you guys are arguing semantics, although I tend to agree with you. If a law is passed lowering taxes for a long period of time, and then the law expires, IMHO, its a tax hike.
If it was a very short term thing (Say a couple months), then I would agree with War Horse.
Did we need the tax lowering in the first place at the time?
While I actually think it's truly just semantics... Taxes get raised and lowered and no one does anything about it... like voting in or out those responsible anyway.
-
Its a BIG mistake to lower taxes in a up-turn. Taxes should be raised to create a healthy surplus and then lowered during hard times to create keep to down turn in check.
So we should be lowering taxes now unfortuanetly we can thank Bush for having already blown our options when the economy was bubbling
A few people got even richer and our country is fucked
Vote Republican, Romney 2012 if you want more of this shit
-
What upturn? This economy keeps getting worse. It's a bad idea to raise taxes on anyone at this time. What needs to be done is what the dumb Dems don't ever want to do. Cut government expenses. Cut expenses on entitlement programs that are not needed. Eliminate government subsidies to stupid green companies whose ideas will never see the light of day because their inventions are impractical. Lower taxes and lower the cost of doing business in America in order to attract foreign corporations and investment.
-
What upturn? This economy keeps getting worse. It's a bad idea to raise taxes on anyone at this time. What needs to be done is what the dumb Dems don't ever want to do. Cut government expenses. Cut expenses on entitlement programs that are not needed. Eliminate government subsidies to stupid green companies whose ideas will never see the light of day because their inventions are impractical. Lower taxes and lower the cost of doing business in America in order to attract foreign corporations and investment.
True but nobody is gonna do this