How are Dems claiming this as "balanced" approach to the fiscal cliff?

[Phurfur 70]

A real balanced approach will not work. We have to cut at least $6 in spending for every $1 we raise in taxes.

 

Cloward-Piven will become a reality!

[NewbieJr 541]

Eliminating the Bush Era Tax cuts for people making over $250,000 would raise $83 billion a year, enough to run the government for 8½ days.

 

How is raising taxes on the "wealthy" sticking up for the middle class?

 

Don't be afraid to see what you see.

So any steps towards raising money to help lower the debt is totally worthless unless it's going to cover the entire amount? Are you that focking stupid? A step that would raise $83 billion isn't worth it? lol

[DankNuggs 305]

So any steps towards raising money to help lower the debt is totally worthless unless it's going to cover the entire amount? Are you that focking stupid? A step that would raise $83 billion isn't worth it? lol

Step towards WHAT????

[Phurfur 70]

Not sure if you heard, but Obama won the election running on exactly what he is doing now. The people have spoken.

 

Obama ran on raising $850 Billion in new taxes now he is proposing $1.6 Trillion. Are you really that stupid that you don't see the difference.

[NewbieJr 541]

Step towards WHAT????

Pssst. There's a problem because the government spends mopre than it takes in. I'd consider 'taking in' $83 billion dolars more a step in the right direction. Maybe that's just me.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I'll break this down for Dank and RP and the other conservatives who aren't quite bright enough to fully understand.....Obama has claimed he'd raise the taxes on the greedy wealthy since he first started running in 2008. He's never wavered on that and continued stating the same for this election.

You expose youself as the biggest moron on the bored whenever you try to act informed.

 

Obama extended the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy on the basis you don't raise taxes in a recession. The economy was growing faster when he said that than it is now.

 

Geebus you are dumb.

[Phurfur 70]

So any steps towards raising money to help lower the debt is totally worthless unless it's going to cover the entire amount? Are you that focking stupid? A step that would raise $83 billion isn't worth it? lol

We are $16.3 Trillion in debt and you are drawing a line in the sand with "no compromise" over $83 billion. I think it is pretty obvious that you are the stupid one.

[NewbieJr 541]

We are $16.3 Trillion in debt and you are drawing a line in the sand with "no compromise" over $83 billion. I think it is pretty obvious that you are the stupid one.

I'd have no problem raising the wealthy's taxes even more if you don't think that much will help at all.

[NewbieJr 541]

You expose youself as the biggest moron on the bored whenever you try to act informed.

 

Obama extended the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy on the basis you don't raise taxes in a recession. The economy was growing faster when he said that than it is now.

 

Geebus you are dumb.

Sorry, Comrade, but you'll have to excuse me if being called dumb by someone who fell for the FBI Surveillance Van trick doesn't exactly ruffle my feathers. :lol:

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I'd have no problem raising the wealthy's taxes even more if you don't think that much will help at all.

I always get a chuckle out of $10 an hour paper pushers who think punishing the rich will make them less of a loser.

[NewbieJr 541]

I always get a chuckle out of $10 an hour paper pushers who think punishing the rich will make them less of a loser.

And I always get a chuckle how conservatives think that every Republican earns more than every Democrat. I'm quite sure I make as much money per year as you do, Hair Lip. But nice try at making yourself look like less of a loser than you really are. (Oh yeah. Perhaps you're counting the money your ex-wife makes doing whatever it takes to get doctors to push her medications)

[DankNuggs 305]

Pssst. There's a problem because the government spends mopre than it takes in. I'd consider 'taking in' $83 billion dolars more a step in the right direction. Maybe that's just me.

Psssst... in his same plan he wants 50 bil+ in new stimulus...i.e. spending. What direction are we stepping again?

[NewbieJr 541]

Psssst... in his same plan he wants 50 bil+ in new stimulus...i.e. spending. What direction are we stepping again?

Psssst. Learn math. 83 > 50. We're stepping in the right direction. HTH

 

Why are you bring a knife to a gun fight? That may have been the weakest counter argument in the history of the board.

[KSB2424 3,148]

1. I really hate that the core GOP folks are holding so tight to not including letting the Bush Tax Cuts for the top earners so tightly. Yes, I realize that by cutting deductions you do the same thing but in a better way, but without this little semantics then the left isn't budging. So just play the liberal semantics crap for crying out loud since they are going to be babies about it.

 

2. Which brings me to Obama and the left. What kind of ridiculous proposal was that? You throw in taking away debt ceiling powers from our elected officials? You throw in a ton of meaningless cuts and also things that actually cost monies? I really can't figure out if you guys are either a.) not serious or b.) pulling some lame prank with that proposal. It's laughable.

 

The GOP needs to simply take what the tax hike would be on the top earners. Say its 4% and cut it in half to 2%, then add that on top of the first proposal they sent. That would be a great propsal and give Obama the opening he needs to say that we raised the tax RATE on rich people so he can make all his liberal hippies cheer. Done and Done.

[Voltaire 5,387]

Know what's nice?

 

The Dems have the Senate and Presidency while the GOP has the House.

 

That means they're going to have to compromise and in doing so, they cure each other of their worst inclinations. So long as the compromise is intended to reduce deficits and not ignore them, it's good. We can kiss goodbye the awful ideas in both the Obama proposal and the Romney/Ryan plan and a deal will likely be struck in the vicinity of Simpson-Bowles.

 

And if they don't reach a deal ... fiscal cliff.

 

The most important thing that will -hopefully- happen is Obama will crowbar GOP lips off of Deficit Grover's ass and cut military spending while the GOP will get Obama to cut entitlement spending.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

And I always get a chuckle how conservatives think that every Republican earns more than every Democrat.

Never said that, Ducky.

 

I just deal with PAs from time to time, when I have to slum it, and I know it isn't a skill position. Any Rube who can dial a phone, send an email, and sign his name can do it.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Psssst. Learn math. 83 > 50. We're stepping in the right direction. HTH

 

Why are you bring a knife to a gun fight? That may have been the weakest counter argument in the history of the board.

 

So you are touting the fact Obama's plan will only run the govt for about 2 days?

 

 

Why are you bringing a spork to a bazooka fight, Ducky?

[wiffleball 4,793]

1. I really hate that the core GOP folks are holding so tight to not including letting the Bush Tax Cuts for the top earners so tightly. Yes, I realize that by cutting deductions you do the same thing but in a better way, but without this little semantics then the left isn't budging. So just play the liberal semantics crap for crying out loud since they are going to be babies about it.

 

2. Which brings me to Obama and the left. What kind of ridiculous proposal was that? You throw in taking away debt ceiling powers from our elected officials? You throw in a ton of meaningless cuts and also things that actually cost monies? I really can't figure out if you guys are either a.) not serious or b.) pulling some lame prank with that proposal. It's laughable.

 

The GOP needs to simply take what the tax hike would be on the top earners. Say its 4% and cut it in half to 2%, then add that on top of the first proposal they sent. That would be a great propsal and give Obama the opening he needs to say that we raised the tax RATE on rich people so he can make all his liberal hippies cheer. Done and Done.

 

 

Largely a solid post. Mind if I add a bit of insight to #1?

 

The difference between an absolute rate increase and focking with the deductions is best described in a real world example of what I (used to) do for a living.

 

Example: There is a $1 per Gallon (which is HUGE) credit for those that sell biodiesel in the U.S. It's absolutely huge when you think of how much a VLCC can carry for example. It's also a total scam. You take cheap forking palm oil from Malaysia, throw a shot-glass of diesel in there and create a totally fictional product called "B99" - which exists nowhere in the world - other than in the IRC (IRS code).

 

What's going to happen this year is likely this: THAT credit (which has hemorraged gazillions of bucks out of the goverment and into corporate energy companies' hands) will be eliminated.

 

Boner and Obummer: "We just cut $500 BILLION dollars by eliminating this credit!"

 

Meanwhile: They'll turn the credit into a 'Blender's Credit'. Meaning: Instead of the guys who sell the product, the guys who blend the credit will get it. (Unfortunately, they're often one in the same).

 

Think that last part will get factored in by the CBO? Fock no.

 

- And THAT's why politicians want to fock with tax language rather than tax rates; They're LAWYERS, not Accountants. You can fock with words far easier than you can with rates.

 

Now, back to reminding my Mom that she should take her morning pills in the morning and her night pills (clearly labeled) at night...

[IGotWorms 4,060]

Obama won on allowing illegals stay in this country and the ability for women to kill their fetus. Oh, along with continuing to give, give, give.

 

[IGotWorms 4,060]

Obama ran on raising $850 Billion in new taxes now he is proposing $1.6 Trillion. Are you really that stupid that you don't see the difference.

 

Obama ran on raising the marginal rate for top earners. Romney ran on supposedly closing loopholes, etc.

 

The current GOP plan is Romney's plan. Romney lost the election. Obama won. The people have spoken.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Obama ran on raising the marginal rate for top earners. Romney ran on supposedly closing loopholes, etc.

 

The current GOP plan is Romney's plan. Romney lost the election. Obama won. The people have spoken.

 

Looks like Obama is touting closing loopholes here.

 

 

 

 

Thanks for stopping by.

[KSB2424 3,148]

Largely a solid post. Mind if I add a bit of insight to #1?

 

The difference between an absolute rate increase and focking with the deductions is best described in a real world example of what I (used to) do for a living.

 

Example: There is a $1 per Gallon (which is HUGE) credit for those that sell biodiesel in the U.S. It's absolutely huge when you think of how much a VLCC can carry for example. It's also a total scam. You take cheap forking palm oil from Malaysia, throw a shot-glass of diesel in there and create a totally fictional product called "B99" - which exists nowhere in the world - other than in the IRC (IRS code).

 

What's going to happen this year is likely this: THAT credit (which has hemorraged gazillions of bucks out of the goverment and into corporate energy companies' hands) will be eliminated.

 

Boner and Obummer: "We just cut $500 BILLION dollars by eliminating this credit!"

 

Meanwhile: They'll turn the credit into a 'Blender's Credit'. Meaning: Instead of the guys who sell the product, the guys who blend the credit will get it. (Unfortunately, they're often one in the same).

 

Think that last part will get factored in by the CBO? Fock no.

 

- And THAT's why politicians want to fock with tax language rather than tax rates; They're LAWYERS, not Accountants. You can fock with words far easier than you can with rates.

 

Now, back to reminding my Mom that she should take her morning pills in the morning and her night pills (clearly labeled) at night...

 

I'm sure you're probably right regarding the 'sub out one deduction/credit for just another'. However we have to start somewhere and the less deductions and credits the better IMO. Chop down that tree one swing at a time.

 

And I agree, Obama won on raising tax rates for the Rich. Wether I or we or the GO focking P like it or not thats what he ran on and he won the election. The way they can save face is meeting in the middle on the rate; nobody said it had to go all the way back to pre Bush Tax cut. They could split the difference on the rate AND cut the credits/deductions. Do both for crying out loud.

 

Then the left is going to have to tackle unemployment, SS and Medicare. They have to raise the age and start means testing with SS and medicare. They have to reduce unemployment from 99 weeks back down to 52. Clean up welfare fraud. Stuff like that. They just have too.

 

And they have to cut spending on other things besides defense and farms. Federal pensions are out of control. All these failed energy money pits. etc.

[wiffleball 4,793]

see above

 

Without quoting everything, pretty much agree with most of what you have to say KSB.

[IGotWorms 4,060]

2. Which brings me to Obama and the left. What kind of ridiculous proposal was that? You throw in taking away debt ceiling powers from our elected officials? You throw in a ton of meaningless cuts and also things that actually cost monies? I really can't figure out if you guys are either a.) not serious or b.) pulling some lame prank with that proposal. It's laughable.

 

It's political gamesmanship. They know they've really got the Republicans' tit in a wringer over this so they're talking full advantage of it. I actually think that's fair right on the heels of an election.

 

I really think this battle has become more about destroying Grover Norquist and his stupid pledge than anything else.The Dems want a clear victory so they can put that whole thing to bed. Norquist and his ilk have been driving federal tax policy for 30+ years and now the Dems finally have an opportunity to smash him to a thousand pieces. Dumb ol' Grover has played right into their hand too by opening his fat mouth and threatening to destroy the GOP if they cave.

 

I do wish they would get serious about some spending cuts in addition to tax increases, but I won't hold my breath. Everyone thinks we should cut spending, but once you target programs that help them personally they start screaming bloody murder.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

 

I really think this battle has become more about destroying Grover Norquist and his stupid pledge than anything else.

 

Awesome endorsement of your party. More worried about destroying a private citizen of the U.S. than avoiding the fiscal cliff Obama and the Dems have us headed towards.

 

You really should read what you post before hitting "add reply", Sport.

[IGotWorms 4,060]

Awesome endorsement of your party. More worried about destroying a private citizen of the U.S. than avoiding the fiscal cliff Obama and the Dems have us headed towards.

 

You really should read what you post before hitting "add reply", Sport.

 

I'm offering reasoned analysis, not partisan bullsh!t.

 

Politics is not just a game where "your team" wins or loses. You seem incapable of understanding that.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I'm offering reasoned analysis, not partisan bullsh!t. You should try it sometime.

How is it partisan bullsh!t to point out your "reasoned analysis" amounts to the Dems going after a private citizen for political gain?

[IGotWorms 4,060]

How is it partisan bullsh!t to point out your "reasoned analysis" amounts to the Dems going after a private citizen for political gain?

 

I'm supposed to feel sorry for Grover? He's been putting himself in the public limelight on this issue for decades.

 

And its partisan bullsh!t because you're only interest is to score "points" in some sort of epic us vs them political internet retard fight that only exists in your head.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I'm supposed to feel sorry for Grover?

Nope.

 

Just wondering why you think it's good public policy for the Dems to destroy a private citizen instead of solving the fiscal cliff problem we are headed towards.

 

Symbolism of substance.........the Dem mantra.

[wiffleball 4,793]

I'm supposed to feel sorry for Grover?

 

 

You're more justified in pitying Elmo. He's the one that's had a buggerer's hand up his ass for the past 20 years...

[IGotWorms 4,060]

You're more justified in pitying Elmo. He's the one that's had a buggerer's hand up his ass for the past 20 years...

 

Elmo wanted it. Nay, he NEEDED it, the sick fock.

[cbfalcon 827]

I'm sure you're probably right regarding the 'sub out one deduction/credit for just another'. However we have to start somewhere and the less deductions and credits the better IMO. Chop down that tree one swing at a time.

 

And I agree, Obama won on raising tax rates for the Rich. Wether I or we or the GO focking P like it or not thats what he ran on and he won the election. The way they can save face is meeting in the middle on the rate; nobody said it had to go all the way back to pre Bush Tax cut. They could split the difference on the rate AND cut the credits/deductions. Do both for crying out loud.

 

Then the left is going to have to tackle unemployment, SS and Medicare. They have to raise the age and start means testing with SS and medicare. They have to reduce unemployment from 99 weeks back down to 52. Clean up welfare fraud. Stuff like that. They just have too.

 

And they have to cut spending on other things besides defense and farms. Federal pensions are out of control. All these failed energy money pits. etc.

 

Random FWIW...congrats on being the only Conservative leaning poster here (off the top of my head) that ever makes any logical sense to me.

[Brad GLuckman 519]

I'll break this down for Dank and RP and the other conservatives who aren't quite bright enough to fully understand.....Obama has claimed he'd raise the taxes on the greedy wealthy since he first started running in 2008. He's never wavered on that and continued stating the same for this election. In Novemeber, they had an election. The PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY decided they wanted Obama to be their leader. The very same guy that promised to raise the tax rate of the wealthy. That's what the people wanted and now our President is sticking to his guns and is insisting that it becomes fact. Maybe they'll have another election in four years where those opposed to that can run. In fact, I'm sure they will. But for now, Obama won and he's going to finally get done what should have been done a long, long time ago. And as a result, maybe some folks will only get to wax their yacht quarterly instead of monthly. Boo focking hoo.

 

I can't imagine going through life being this angry and envious of people who are wealthier than me. It's quite telling that to you, wealth = greed. Honestly, it seems to me that you really don't care about what happens with the debt, deficit, economy...eh, whatever...as long as the rich get punished for having the balls to be .... successful.

 

As far as this thread is concerned. As usual, KSB2424 nailed it. Best political poster on the board. Wish he'd post more often to bring some common sense to the constant Newbie/RP girl fights.

[drobeski 3,061]

its being used to finance more unemployment benefits and giveaways... Definitely not going anywhere near the middle class. People in the middle class have job skills, when they get laid off they get another job, they don't sit in UE for 2 years then jump on disability for another 5....

That would be the dirtbag class, the heart and soul of obamas base.

[Voltaire 5,387]

It seems like 100% what Dems want is a balanced approach. Obama wants double the increase he supposedly wanted when running for office on taxes for 250K and up , wants an unlimited debt ceiling, and other powers he can just do himself without asking congress. This is what is Balanced to democrats - and they can't believe the Right is saying fock you. The GOP send a proposal basically what Obama was said to want when running and Obama basically goes NO! I want everything I want and fock you until I get it.

 

The House doesn't need to act on it. It sucks, it's stupid; it should be and will be ignored. It's scary in that it's a laundry list of what the Dems would do if they had the presidency and both houses of Congress.

 

Anyways, put the shoe on the other foot, at least now you know why the Ryan budget never got a hearing in the Senate. Both are non-starters that are simply insults to the opposition.

[NewbieJr 541]

I can't imagine going through life being this angry and envious of people who are wealthier than me. It's quite telling that to you, wealth = greed.

I don't think that everyone who is wealthy is greedy. I just know that there are very many that are. All you have to look at is the ridiculous salary disparage between the workers of this country and the upper management/CEOs.

Just like the people who are lazy and don't want to work and are looking for handouts make a lot of people stereotype ALL Denocrats as being that way, the greedy rich focks make the rest of them look bad.

[NewbieJr 541]

As for a concession for the Democratic side, I'd have no problem raising the age of social security eligibilty from 65 to 67.

[hoytdwow 202]

I'm sure you're probably right regarding the 'sub out one deduction/credit for just another'. However we have to start somewhere and the less deductions and credits the better IMO. Chop down that tree one swing at a time.

 

And I agree, Obama won on raising tax rates for the Rich. Wether I or we or the GO focking P like it or not thats what he ran on and he won the election. The way they can save face is meeting in the middle on the rate; nobody said it had to go all the way back to pre Bush Tax cut. They could split the difference on the rate AND cut the credits/deductions. Do both for crying out loud.

 

Then the left is going to have to tackle unemployment, SS and Medicare. They have to raise the age and start means testing with SS and medicare. They have to reduce unemployment from 99 weeks back down to 52. Clean up welfare fraud. Stuff like that. They just have too.

 

And they have to cut spending on other things besides defense and farms. Federal pensions are out of control. All these failed energy money pits. etc.

KSB won this thread

[Mike Honcho 5,339]

Eliminating the Bush Era Tax cuts for people making over $250,000 would raise $83 billion a year, enough to run the government for 8½ days.

 

How is raising taxes on the "wealthy" sticking up for the middle class?

 

Don't be afraid to see what you see.

 

The Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) new report shows that allowing President Bush’s 2001 and 2003 income tax cuts on income over $250,000 to expire on schedule at the end of 2012 would save $823 billion in revenue and $127 billion on interest on the nation’s debt, compared to permanently extending all of the Bush tax cuts. Overall, this would mean$950 billion in ten-year deficit reduction, a significant step in the direction of fiscal stability.

 

Prior CBO analysis showed the minimal economic risk this would pose in the short-term. CBO previously concluded that extending only the so-called “middle class” tax cuts on income below $250,000, instead of extending all of the tax cuts, would “be more cost-effective in boosting output and employment in the short run because the higher-income households that would probably spend a smaller fraction of any increase in their after-tax income would receive a smaller share of the reduction in taxes (relative to current law).”

 

 

http://www.offthechartsblog.org/cbo-ending-high-income-tax-cuts-would-save-almost-1-trillion/

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Psssst. Learn math. 83 > 50. We're stepping in the right direction. HTH

 

Why are you bring a knife to a gun fight? That may have been the weakest counter argument in the history of the board.

Your Hero just asked for $60 Billion more to hand out to victims of Sandy. That's twice what he is proposing to cut, Sport.

 

Looks like it's back to the drawing bored for you and your Hero.

 

Time to put your spork away, it's isn't much of a weapon.