Poll on tax cuts: for everyone or for under $250k only

[thereisnospoon]

Uhh, fraid you might hafta. The "losers" are still in charge of an overwhelming majority of the government.

Really? Show us where. Your side LOST the US House. Your side has a slim but not filibuster proof majority in the Senate. That means our side in effect owns the Senate as well because any bullshit the dems try to scam through will be blocked. And before your knee jerks and hits you in the jaw here's the thing. The Founders set up our government this way on purpose. To limit the power of the federal government. Ever wonder why the Upper Chamber has each state EQUALLY represented? Sheesh. You people have no clue or maybe you do. However, you are pros at bitching and whining when things don't go in your favor..Deal with it.
Have you asked yourself why the media and the DC democrat establishment has been bellyaching about bi-partisanship?
Not this time. The GOP tried playing nice nice with the democrats and they got stabbed in the back.
So now you people will just have to step aside. Tough shit.

so youre taking the obstructionist role again. if we dont get what we want, you cant get anything either? and you wonder why our government if so messed up right now. this is like a two year throwing a tantrum because they didnt get what they wanted. now im not saying that the dems ideas are full proof or perfect. but what is the rebuttal from the repubs, well i dont like it so we all vote no, no matter what.

why cant you offer solutions instead of simply no's?

why couldnt they vote on the tax cuts individually instead of holding everyone hostage. simply hold a vote for the tax cuts on everyone who makes below $250k and then hold a subsequent vote on the cuts for everyone making above $250k. thats a compromise, let the house hold a vote and the senate. what passes passes, and what doesnt doesnt. thats a good bi-partisan agreement. the vote may not be bi-partisan but an agreement to vote on them individually would force the hand of people on both sides of the isle to see whom them really represent and really support.

this bullshit of Mitch McConnell saying that he will hold up every piece of legislation until the tax cuts is resolved is also akin to a child throwing a tantrum. youre suppose to be an adult, so start acting like one.
As far as the term "hostage" in this instance...Please....Spare me the talking points of MSM and liberals in DC.
I heard soundbites of Sens and Reps on the floor use the word "hostage" 38 times.
THIRTY EIGHT!!!! Jesus Christ!!!

this is whats wrong with the people we send to washington. they dont necessarily represent the people anymore. this is a great reason why we need term limits. we limit the president to a maximum of 2 - 4 years terms. but a senator can be in govt for as long as they get re-elected. that could be upwards of 20-30 years.

Don't talk to me about bi-partisanship.
If what you call "obstructionist" is in other words limiting the power of the federal government, so be it.
In as far as term limits, I agree 100%.
Senate two terms. House 6 terms. No pension and a 50% reduction in pay for both.
Citizen legislature. You serve. You go home. The way the Founders planned it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

"Our side", the GOP, is still the minority in the government.

Any other statement is simply stupid.

The GOP wants to keep the rich richer. The Dems will do that in return for an extension of unemployment benefits and the extension of the nuke treaty.

Who wants to bet that will happen: tit for tat.

Yeah ok jakey..Keep in touch with yourself.
Your insignificant presence here is not required.

 

[MajinLink]

The rich really don't need tax cuts. They have destroyed so many jobs so they can become richer. They have increased the national debt so they could become richer. They have denied the children education, the hungry food, and the sick healthcare so they could become richer.

 

[Care4all]

The rich really don't need tax cuts. They have destroyed so many jobs so they can become richer. They have increased the national debt so they could become richer. They have denied the children education, the hungry food, and the sick healthcare so they could become richer.

i disagree with that sentiment.

a FEW that are wealthy have done what you stated but for the most part, the rich are not all the wicked witch of the west....

i think many or most, are good intentioned human beings...and probably great philanthropists for many causes!

I don't really think it is the wealthiest that have denied all those things listed either....maybe those on the right who make much much much less than them have argued that the wealthy should not pay for this for others....but the wealthiest that are vocal on the topic never say that from what i've heard.

i don't think the wealthiest in our country are balking on their tax cuts being allowed to expire either....haven't heard one of the top 1% ers, saying such a thing....again, maybe the lower in status than them are arguing such, but i've never heard the actual 1%er doing it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Our side", the GOP, is still the minority in the government.

Any other statement is simply stupid.

The GOP wants to keep the rich richer. The Dems will do that in return for an extension of unemployment benefits and the extension of the nuke treaty.

Who wants to bet that will happen: tit for tat.

Yeah ok jakey..Keep in touch with yourself.
Your insignificant presence here is not required.

My presence is required to offset inane comments by folks like you. You will see the compromise by the end of next week. Fiscal sanity requires, however, cutting spending in major programs: an increase in retirement age and means testing for all recipients in Social Security; a 15 to 25% reduction in Defense spending over the next decade and spreading contracts across the country as much as possible. Term limits. No pensions.

 

[kyzr]

That the DC clowns are even considering borrowing to give tax cuts, AFTER 8-years of demonstrating that the tax cuts had a terrible effect on job creation and the economy overall is moronic.
They desperately need a Plan-B....how about a balanced budget amendment??

 

[Full-Auto]

That the DC clowns are even considering borrowing to give tax cuts, AFTER 8-years of demonstrating that the tax cuts had a terrible effect on job creation and the economy overall is moronic.
They desperately need a Plan-B....how about a balanced budget amendment??

Oh brother, another simple mind thatt hinks the economy can be explained by tax cuts alone.

 

[kyzr]

That the DC clowns are even considering borrowing to give tax cuts, AFTER 8-years of demonstrating that the tax cuts had a terrible effect on job creation and the economy overall is moronic.
They desperately need a Plan-B....how about a balanced budget amendment??

Oh brother, another simple mind that thinks the economy can be explained by tax cuts alone.

I can point to the Clinton/Newt era when 22m jobs were created, and to the Bush era where 22m jobs were lost. Its not rocket science, its what was proven to work or keeping what was proven not to work. Simple-minded or not, you can't prove that borrowing from China to give tax cuts is anything but disastrous.

 

[Full-Auto]

That the DC clowns are even considering borrowing to give tax cuts, AFTER 8-years of demonstrating that the tax cuts had a terrible effect on job creation and the economy overall is moronic.
They desperately need a Plan-B....how about a balanced budget amendment??

Oh brother, another simple mind that thinks the economy can be explained by tax cuts alone.

I can point to the Clinton/Newt era when 22m jobs were created, and to the Bush era where 22m jobs were lost. Its not rocket science, its what was proven to work or keeping what was proven not to work. Simple-minded or not, you can't prove that borrowing from China to give tax cuts is anything but disastrous.

And???????????????????????????????

My only opposition to your post was your description of the economy. If its as simple as you say, why are you not taxing us to prosperity. All you have to do is raise taxes.

Then you can bich about the overseas movement.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh brother, another simple mind that thinks the economy can be explained by tax cuts alone.

I can point to the Clinton/Newt era when 22m jobs were created, and to the Bush era where 22m jobs were lost. Its not rocket science, its what was proven to work or keeping what was proven not to work. Simple-minded or not, you can't prove that borrowing from China to give tax cuts is anything but disastrous.

And???????????????????????????????

My only opposition to your post was your description of the economy. If its as simple as you say, why are you not taxing us to prosperity. All you have to do is raise taxes.

Then you can bich about the overseas movement.

Now that comment is both simplistic and uninformed.

 

[Full-Auto]

I can point to the Clinton/Newt era when 22m jobs were created, and to the Bush era where 22m jobs were lost. Its not rocket science, its what was proven to work or keeping what was proven not to work. Simple-minded or not, you can't prove that borrowing from China to give tax cuts is anything but disastrous.

And???????????????????????????????

My only opposition to your post was your description of the economy. If its as simple as you say, why are you not taxing us to prosperity. All you have to do is raise taxes.

Then you can bich about the overseas movement.

Now that comment is both simplistic and uninformed.

Another simpleton.

I guess you would describe all aspects of the economies working or failing on tax rates alone.

Fruit loop

 

[Big Black Dog]

The rich really don't need tax cuts. They have destroyed so many jobs so they can become richer. They have increased the national debt so they could become richer. They have denied the children education, the hungry food, and the sick healthcare so they could become richer.

Sounds like you bought the liberal horseshit hook, line and sinker...

 

[thereisnospoon]

The rich really don't need tax cuts. They have destroyed so many jobs so they can become richer. They have increased the national debt so they could become richer. They have denied the children education, the hungry food, and the sick healthcare so they could become richer.

Who the hell are you to think that YOU get to decide how much is "enough"?
How about this. Let's have the government pass a law that says no one may have more than $100,000 in total assets?...
Why not have a government mandated cap of $50,000 per year in annual income?
You people are a miracle.
You amaze in that you point fingers at others who just so happen to have exceeded some magic threshold of wealth and label them as greedy.
What about YOU?...
Is $100,000 per year rich?
Ok fine. How about the guy that works a union job for example. He worked 20 years for the New York City Dept of Corrections. He told me his salary was almost $100,000 per year and that was before the OT he worked.
Now, is that RICH?...Is that "too much"? Is it beyond your comfort zone? Or does he get a hall pass because he is a union guy? But the white collar worker in the next building makes the EXACT amount if money the union guy did get labeled an Evil rich guy"?
I cannot wait for your response.

 

[boedicca]

The rich really don't need tax cuts. They have destroyed so many jobs so they can become richer. They have increased the national debt so they could become richer. They have denied the children education, the hungry food, and the sick healthcare so they could become richer.

i disagree with that sentiment.

a FEW that are wealthy have done what you stated but for the most part, the rich are not all the wicked witch of the west....

i think many or most, are good intentioned human beings...and probably great philanthropists for many causes!

I don't really think it is the wealthiest that have denied all those things listed either....maybe those on the right who make much much much less than them have argued that the wealthy should not pay for this for others....but the wealthiest that are vocal on the topic never say that from what i've heard.

i don't think the wealthiest in our country are balking on their tax cuts being allowed to expire either....haven't heard one of the top 1% ers, saying such a thing....again, maybe the lower in status than them are arguing such, but i've never heard the actual 1%er doing it.

Agreed, with a modification.

The top 1% begins at an income level below $400,000. Quite a few of the 1%ers have far more in common with the broader middle class (have to work for a living, a mortgage to service, kids educations to fund, retirement funds to save) than the teensy peak of mega millionaires and billionaires.

To lump an attorney married to a CPA together with Bill Gates and Warren Buffett is nonsense.

 

[Nosmo King]

So, if I understand this predicament, everyone wants the economy chugging along again. The American consumer and his spending drives the economy. Some folks still push the tired old trickle down argument that cutting taxes for millionaires and billionaires will stimulate the economy. Why? Because those millionaires and billionaires create jobs.

But then wasn't it consumer spending that drives the economy? Will those millionaires and billionaires spend their tax cuts and thus stimulate the economy? And those jobs the rich create, why haven't they created them in America instead of China?

If the consumer drives the economy, wouldn't putting as much money in the hands of the most people do the most good?

Are Conservatives convinced that if they kowtow to the rich, maybe they too can become rich? Why can't Conservatives admit what is so apparent? Consumer spending is what makes the economy go round. The flow of capital from one hand to another is what grows the economy. The rich can't possibly spend the way the middle class can. Why? Because there aren't as many rich as there are middle class consumers.

How about the amazingly simple answer is that it's their money in the first place?

Screw the rich....

Now, we cut to the nut of the matter...You're just covetous.

Thanks for that brief moment of unintentional candor.

Shooting fish in a barrel.
The entire "tax the rich" agenda of the libs is focused on jealousy. Period.
"Screw the rich"....Ask them any question as to why they despise those who they view has "having more than the libs feel is a fair share" and you'll get nothing in substance.
You'll get the tired lib talking points about federal deficits, how the wealthy "hoard" their money, how it is unfair that poor people are remaining poor while the rich continue to find ways to increase their revenue flow( read rich getting richer....so WHAT!)
No I don't find it alarming that wealthy people are earning more. Nor do I find it alarming that poor people remain poor.
At the end of the day, the Left sees what others have and they want it. They want it now. This is especially prevalent among younger people. They are not taught the value of hard work. They are taught to complain about that which they do not have and are taught that hard work will get them nowhere. They are taught that those who have success have simply "won the lottery of life"...
Finally the left believes in the zero sum game. Simply put, that there exists in some far off place a magic pile of money. A pie. A place from where the wealthy have unfairly grabbed more than they deserve. That if one has more then another MUST have less.
It's all horse shit.

I'm not for taxing the rich because of emotion. I'm for taxing teh rich because giving those who need it least a 780 billion dollar break is not good fiscal policy.

In my post, I outlined how consumer spending drives the economy. How getting the most money into the most hands will propel this economy. How giving the few the biggest break just does not work out that well, fiscally speaking.

Then your post goes on to tell me and others what I think according to the ideology you subscribe to. Well, that's driving the argument with emotion rather than logic.

Regroup (as the great thinker Palin says) reload and try again. This time without the lopsided projections about what I may or may not think. Try arguing against the middle class consumer and his power to move capital from hand to hand. We know how giving the top moneymakers more money works, and it's feeble and ineffective.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The rich really don't need tax cuts. They have destroyed so many jobs so they can become richer. They have increased the national debt so they could become richer. They have denied the children education, the hungry food, and the sick healthcare so they could become richer.

Sounds like you bought the liberal horseshit hook, line and sinker...

Hope you have not bought the far right reactionary (pretend conservative) nonsense.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The rich really don't need tax cuts. They have destroyed so many jobs so they can become richer. They have increased the national debt so they could become richer. They have denied the children education, the hungry food, and the sick healthcare so they could become richer.

I don't know of anybody wealthy who has denied children education, hungry people food, or sick people health care. If you have to lie to make your point, you probably don't have much of a point to begin with.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Privatization of orphan and foster care that has victimized the weakest in our country, the reduction of arts and music and physical education for high stakes testing that has made our education weak in comparison with the rest of the industrialized world, and the antics of the health insurance crime cartel in this country that has led to the USA being in the lower group of 11 to 20 among industrialized countries ~~ all has become a fact of our lives since 1980. The rich and want to be rich victimize the weakest in our country for profit.

 

[Oddball]

How about the amazingly simple answer is that it's their money in the first place?




Now, we cut to the nut of the matter...You're just covetous.

Thanks for that brief moment of unintentional candor.

Shooting fish in a barrel.
The entire "tax the rich" agenda of the libs is focused on jealousy. Period.
"Screw the rich"....Ask them any question as to why they despise those who they view has "having more than the libs feel is a fair share" and you'll get nothing in substance.
You'll get the tired lib talking points about federal deficits, how the wealthy "hoard" their money, how it is unfair that poor people are remaining poor while the rich continue to find ways to increase their revenue flow( read rich getting richer....so WHAT!)
No I don't find it alarming that wealthy people are earning more. Nor do I find it alarming that poor people remain poor.
At the end of the day, the Left sees what others have and they want it. They want it now. This is especially prevalent among younger people. They are not taught the value of hard work. They are taught to complain about that which they do not have and are taught that hard work will get them nowhere. They are taught that those who have success have simply "won the lottery of life"...
Finally the left believes in the zero sum game. Simply put, that there exists in some far off place a magic pile of money. A pie. A place from where the wealthy have unfairly grabbed more than they deserve. That if one has more then another MUST have less.
It's all horse shit.

I'm not for taxing the rich because of emotion. I'm for taxing teh rich because giving those who need it least a 780 billion dollar break is not good fiscal policy.

In my post, I outlined how consumer spending drives the economy. How getting the most money into the most hands will propel this economy. How giving the few the biggest break just does not work out that well, fiscally speaking.

Then your post goes on to tell me and others what I think according to the ideology you subscribe to. Well, that's driving the argument with emotion rather than logic.

Regroup (as the great thinker Palin says) reload and try again. This time without the lopsided projections about what I may or may not think. Try arguing against the middle class consumer and his power to move capital from hand to hand. We know how giving the top moneymakers more money works, and it's feeble and ineffective.

Pure, unadulterated bullshit.

The very notion that people being allowed to keep more of what's theirs to begin with belies your underlying envy and covetousness.

Who died and made you the arbiter of who needs the fruits of their labors and who doesn't, anyways?

 

[JakeStarkey]

OddOne lives in a society with laws and a social compact, and he whines like a little girl.