Senate GOP pledges to block all bills

[JB3]

he just voted against lowering taxes for 98 percent of all americans... you want to quibble?

go ahead

it just gets sillier and sillier

What quibbling? The dems pulled a BS political move, and you bought it hook line and sinker. No wonder they cater to the same type of person the republicans do...

 

[Kulindahr]

Dude, you should invest a little time to figure out how using some basic HTML can spice up your posts.

Isn't there a "JUB for Dummies" thread somewhere?

 

[chance1]

I want the taxes to be raised.

dont play games with me, jack.

talk about the topic without taking a personal shot or just skip the thread.

talk about the topic w/o taking a personal shot?

are you kidding mr. can't do w/o personal shots?

H Y P O C R I T E

yep

back to the thread

# 1 issue is the taxes - the economy

the repubs r douches for being obstructionist i agree

but the fucking dems who are losing their power grip had lots of time to do shit

doing it in lameduck is ......... lame

both sides suck

call it like it is

not just thru ur prism

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm with you, yet again. I used to credit Reagan solely with this. Then Reagan and Thatcher. Then Reagan, Thatcher and John Paul II. Now it's all of those and possibly the Chechin terrorists. They died the death of a thousand cuts. We may be seeing much the same thing happening here as well. Two wars, terrorism, and an intentional destruction of the currency.

Reagan had a huge amount to do with it, sort of like giving a guy teetering on a railroad rail a kick in the rear.

Let's hope China has no Reagan....

the system has to be fixed, and that means they have to do what they did the last time. WW2 during the great depression.

they raised taxes on the wealthy to 90 percent.

Now I am not advocating that extreme a measure, but really? the tax rate has to rise on the people with the cash, and that graph up there shows who is holding the cash, or the dollar will collapse.

I am.

>

I think you're both wusses -- they should calculate what percentage of the actual wealth, not the income, is needed to get the debt down to under a half trillion, and do a one-time levy to settle that issue. The amount that would save would go a long way to killing the deficit.

Add that to a 90% rate that decreases by 2.5% every year until the rest of the debt is paid, our infrastructure is in good shape, and a trillion or so has been put in a fund dedicated to getting us off foreign oil.

After that I'd love to see the individual exemption go to $35k.

 

[Kulindahr]

the stock market has its place. deriving income from it should be taxed, though. income is income.

This reminds me of something I forgot to say earlier: the business of the rich investing money and creating jobs, if the tax rates stay low, is a fairy tale -- historically, it just doesn't happen. What they do invest in is financial devices, so if the ordinary people make money, they make more, and if the ordinary people lose money... they still make money.

I know there are 'bills' to pay

that wasnt my point. my point was about the mentality of taxes

i found it par for the course for some libs and one of our libs used the word that the govt was "giving" the rich $$$ by not confiscating more of the rich's EARNED income

Unless it's actually out there providing jobs and giving us goods or direct physical services, I don't call it "earned", I call it sucked -- as in parasitic, like leeches.

One can deal with parasites by killing them -- or making use of them. Higher taxes for the parasites is just justice.

 

[Kulindahr]

What my colleague MoltenRock, myself, and other lefties don't understand is why y'all are still believing that this witchcraft works, when history very clearly shows that it doesn't.

Just a small correction: the Laffer curve does work -- in a very narrow set of circumstances. I wish I could give a link to the article/study I used to use, but I can't even think of words to google with. At any rate, taxes on all but the bottom are already beyond the Laffer range -- especially for the upper layer. The historical evidence is that tax rate cuts for the wealthy below one-third of their income have no beneficial effect, and below a quarter the results are definitely detrimental to the economy, not beneficial.

BTW, one requirement for the Laffer curve to work is low unemployment. The reason should be obvious, but I'll state it: when a substantial portion of the citizenry is without work, cutting their taxes accomplishes absolutely zilch, because they don't have any income to pay taxes on anyway.
The other side of that is that for the curve to work, a small amount of unemployment is required, as a labor source for expansion. And we have a problem there, too: a huge portion of the unemployed right now don't have skills suitable for the sort of jobs that are being created at the moment. I was reminded of that recently, when I saw a job openings list for this little town: there were over three hundred openings! but all but a few required a college degree and/or some specific skill.

Which is why two more families already this month have packed up and left, putting yet more houses on sale in a place where prices are down 45% from what they were when my dad died three years ago.


After all that rambling -- it's not just lefties; this libertarian doesn't get it, either. The evidence is plain that the Laffer effect is a limited one, but 'conservatives' keep acting like it's universal. This stubbornness reminds me of a guy who, reading a mystery novel, really likes the second proposed solution, and thereafter refuses to believe any other explanation, right to the end -- and even then may proclaim that the author is wrong.

 

[Kulindahr]

Some people will protect their entitlement mentality to the bitter end. Presidents don't cut taxes, congress does. Reagan had a saying, (I'm paraphrasing) "if you want more of something, subsidize it, if you want less of something, tax it". As people mature, with clear heads not clouded by years of alcohol and drug abuse, they will understand this saying.

Like the Laffer curve, Reagan's saying is not universally true.

The quote I remember from Reagan is this:

Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

Additionally, the saying you cite does not apply to individuals, it applies to business, and there he is quite correct, because it's impossible to tax a business; you only tax the customers.

Final note: these tax cuts have nothing to do with any entitlement mentality, they have to do with caring about the country. All those Republicans who voted to make everyone below them suffer just so their campaign donors could keep raking in enough more that the difference between their taxes before and their taxes now is enough for most individuals to live on are enemies of the United States of America, or pure idiots... which makes them enemies of the United States of America.
Of course we already knew that; they're all baa-ing along after the biggest traitor and enemy of the Republic in Congress, John "kill the Bill of Rights" McCain.

 

[BostonPirate]

thanks for all the insights kuli... I was dissapointed that you weren't here for the discussion in real time, and I'm glad you weighed in.

 

[Kulindahr]

Supersix, the thing is that our allegations can be proven.

Lowering taxes doesn't pay the bills, and all the lying you do to yourself won't change that fact.

And by the way, it's obvious that you really are that young.

More accurately, lowering taxes pays the bills only under very limited circumstances. Double-digit unemployment negates the effect; besides that, on the top end, rates are low enough the effect doesn't work there anyway.

If the top rate were at 40%, I'd agree that lowering it could have a positive effect on the economy and possibly increase revenues, but only if the economy were reasonably healthy to begin with. But it isn't.

Johann "lets tax everybody but me" Bessler.

Taxing everybody but yourself doesn't pay the bills, and all the lying you do to yourself won't change that fact.

Lying about Johann's position doesn't help, either. You sound just like our future [STRIKE]liar[/STRIKE] Speaker of the House, casting slurs on people to avoid intelligent discourse -- and casting doubt on his ability to do so in any case.

 

[Kulindahr]

BECAUSE the vote was an attempt by democrats to pressure the republicans since negotiations are still ongoing as far as what the final bill will look like.

As I said above, they support tax cuts, but will not support (at least not yet publicly) a bill that does not include tax cuts for all.

You're getting there, but you're not quite as good at spin as Lying Limbaugh.

This was what the Democrats said they intended to do back even before the elections.

What they should have done was let the tax cuts expire and replaced them with an increase in the individual exemption to $12,000. That would have been a tax cut for everyone, and would have helped where it's needed.

What quibbling? The dems pulled a BS political move, and you bought it hook line and sinker. No wonder they cater to the same type of person the republicans do...

Are you suggesting they had a crystal ball they used to look ahead and decided back before the elections that they'd make a plan that months later would embarrass the Republicans?

I almost wish they did -- they deserve to be embarrassed. What they should be doing is calculating how high they can raise taxes, especially on the wealthy, without putting the brakes on the weak recovery, in order to pay off debt, especially foreign debt. That they aren't tells me they care about the country less than I would care about a drunk on the street passed out in his own vomit.

the repubs r douches for being obstructionist i agree

but the fucking dems who are losing their power grip had lots of time to do shit

doing it in lameduck is ......... lame

both sides suck

This whole bloody Congress has been a lame ducky, because it's been crippled by Mr. "I'm back in diapers and I'll poop if I don't get my authoritarian way" McCain, the coward behind almost all the fake filibustering.

It would serve the Republicans right if the Democrats announced to America, "We're going to follow the example the Republicans set: not one single bill in the Senate will be allowed to pass. They've been doing it to you for two years, and you voted more of them in, so we'll take that as a mandate for more filibusters."


BTW, at those DADT hearings, I wish someone had looked McCain in the eye and asked, "Senator Hypocrite, just why is it you think we should listen to the senile rantings of a coward?"

 

[Supersix]

The left is so angry and self righteous!! Ignore McCain, everyone else does, he was never a darling of the right, only of the left wing news media. And so many of you start from this premise of an entitlement mentality, this fundamental beginning that it's evil to be rich, and that some pious politician should come along and take it all back, and give it to you. Why not go out and earn your own? You ARE free to do so. And as for being proud of paying taxes, I would be too, if tax money were spent (alot) more wisely, and not pissed away buying votes and erecting structures named after politicians and other social heros, so annointed by the news media. When those of you who hate wealth start adding left wing darling celebrities to your list of the hated rich, then you'll have some credibility. Why doesn't barba striesand put her loads of money where her enormous mouth is, and support some charity? What about bill clinton and al gore, filthy rich and write off donated socks? And be a slum lord and get away with it?
And as I said before, gridlock in congress is a GOOD thing. With EITHER party in the majority. Or do you want a dictatorship?

 

[opinterph]

Why doesn't barba striesand put her loads of money where her enormous mouth is, and support some charity?

​

http://www.looktothestars.org/celebrity/181-barbra-streisand​

 

[Kulindahr]

The left is so angry and self righteous!! Ignore McCain, everyone else does, he was never a darling of the right, only of the left wing news media. And so many of you start from this premise of an entitlement mentality, this fundamental beginning that it's evil to be rich, and that some pious politician should come along and take it all back, and give it to you. Why not go out and earn your own? You ARE free to do so. And as for being proud of paying taxes, I would be too, if tax money were spent (alot) more wisely, and not pissed away buying votes and erecting structures named after politicians and other social heros, so annointed by the news media. When those of you who hate wealth start adding left wing darling celebrities to your list of the hated rich, then you'll have some credibility. Why doesn't barba striesand put her loads of money where her enormous mouth is, and support some charity? What about bill clinton and al gore, filthy rich and write off donated socks? And be a slum lord and get away with it?
And as I said before, gridlock in congress is a GOOD thing. With EITHER party in the majority. Or do you want a dictatorship?

The "free to do so" mantra has a flaw: it isn't actually true. It's an interesting failing of the selfish-libertarian view, the failure to see that a substantial number of people can't go out and make money, while others can, but they don't have the combined talents to get rich. There are people who would be fantastic at running a small business, but are clueless about building one, and people who are fantastic at building a small business, but couldn't run it to save their life the moment it got into double digits of employees.

People can often only make as much money as those with a stranglehold on the economy will allow -- and THAT is what is evil about the rich.

 

[BostonPirate]

The "free to do so" mantra has a flaw: it isn't actually true. It's an interesting failing of the selfish-libertarian view, the failure to see that a substantial number of people can't go out and make money, while others can, but they don't have the combined talents to get rich. There are people who would be fantastic at running a small business, but are clueless about building one, and people who are fantastic at building a small business, but couldn't run it to save their life the moment it got into double digits of employees.

People can often only make as much money as those with a stranglehold on the economy will allow -- and THAT is what is evil about the rich.

structural unemployment.

It is a result of not having an educated workforce and not having jobs available for what the workforce is trained to do. It can have many causes, but in a capitalist system it may occur because large sectors of people are shut out of the system intentionally by another group who guards information needed to do available jobs.

Unions CAN but not necessarily always create a bit of structural unemployment. usually it is just because education is unavailable due to the financial costs of education. Its the danger of letting individual personal income affect public access to education.

 

[Supersix]

Without even looking, I'm sure whatever she does donate, if anything, is but a tiny fraction of the money she has available. And whatever the amount, I'd question those charities, too. There are people who donate to support terrorism, too. Just because it's donated doesn't mean it's a good cause. MY point was that phony liberals love to be generous with taxpayer's money, because it is easy to do so. Hence the calls to raise taxes and spend it on projects that among other things, their major achievement is to get the politician re-elected. And, we cannot gaurantee equal outcomes, only equal opportunities. Stop obsessing over whether someone who has money got it the right or wrong way, and worry about yourself. We have Attorneys General for that, news media, regulations and laws for that.

 

[MoltenRock III]

Unions CAN but not necessarily always create a bit of structural unemployment. usually it is just because education is unavailable due to the financial costs of education. Its the danger of letting individual personal income affect public access to education.

No, that's not correct at all. Unions have training programs and apprentice programs to teach people their trade, and thus also make sure that the union label / stamp means the job or item being done / built has been done so with quality. A portion of every US union I've ever seen (dozens) always includes a portion of their dues for training for newbies and on-going training for their experienced journeymen.

 

[BostonPirate]

No, that's not correct at all. Unions have training programs and apprentice programs to teach people their trade, and thus also make sure that the union label / stamp means the job or item being done / built has been done so with quality. A portion of every US union I've ever seen (dozens) always includes a portion of their dues for training for newbies and on-going training for their experienced journeymen.

that insures a higher quality of services and product, but to be sure, you cannot just gain an apprenticeship without doling out the bucks.

are you saying that apprenticeships cost nothing and apprentices have no dues obligations? If the union carries the cost then why ask for the fee at all?

that does create a minor ampunt of structural unemployment in that there are those that would be electricians IF they could afford the dues and fees.

Notice I said MAY and I did not say that the union system does not have its advantages.

It allows a service industry to self regulate without placing the burden of the cost on a government system.

 

[stevexxx]

i'm glad they are blocking all bills. Obama has spent enough money. we do not need to be dirt poorer anymore

 

[MoltenRock III]

i'm glad they are blocking all bills. Obama has spent enough money. we do not need to be dirt poorer anymore

Which items of which bills SPECIFICALLY are you against? See here at CE&P trolls and generalists get called out to defend their positions so that some silly talking points can't just be thrown out there.

So "Steve" please provide exact, specific, items of the Obama agenda you despise or don't support and why.

I look forward to your answers, although expect a full retreat, tuck tail, and run from you.

 

[BostonPirate]

i'm glad they are blocking all bills. Obama has spent enough money. we do not need to be dirt poorer anymore

news flash!!!!

ready?????????

a tax cut is an expense

GASP!!!

in fact, one third of the 879 bill stimulus package was NOT cash alotment, but tax cuts.

good lord