Reject Reject Reject

[boedicca]

why are there two conversations going on here? one about tax cuts and one about spending then?

or are you illiterate?

Moron, I'm not the one who got confused and thought the Senate had passed the Omnibus bill by 89-19.

retard, like youve never had a typo on here before. i even admitted and corrected it. now

Here's a little story about that: No.

 

[Sallow]

I really hope they stick by their guns this time..

Who are you and what did you do with my ubber liberal pal Sallow?

Believe me..that math doesn't work and I don't like it.

No sir..not one bit.

But as we speak..it made it through the Senate. Mainly a done deal.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I really hope they stick by their guns this time..

Who are you and what did you do with my ubber liberal pal Sallow?

Believe me..that math doesn't work and I don't like it.

No sir..not one bit.

But as we speak..it made it through the Senate. Mainly a done deal.

Well whaddaknow. We agree on something else. That's 2 in one month, if we agree on 1 more thing... well, you might want to check your bucket list and work on the ones you really want to do

 

[Two Thumbs]

children!

Do i need to take off my belt?

flasher!!!!!!

That's part of the punishment.

it's, uhm

It's not a preaty sight.

 

[Care4all]

So you are twisting this up so that it looks like a bad thing.

Do you actually want increased spending? Keeping in mind that the 2 spending bills, failed miserably, no matter how you count saved jobs.

they didnt fail. they helped keep jobs in place as well as add jobs to the economy. even if it was for a short while, it still did its intended purpose, which was to save or create jobs.

maybe you should be mad at Bush for doing the 1st stimulus and starting TARP. he was a "conservative" after all

I was pissed at Bush, and clinton but mostly Franks.

But the bills were an utter failure. If you take the highes actual estimate of jobs saved/created and divide that into the cost. Each job cost a minimum of $140k each. It would have been better to just gove 50k to twice as many people and avoided government waste.

i think a few hundred billion of the stimulus paid the unemployed compensation that was not funded by the State taxes on employers.

that of course would not be for jobs

another few hundred billion goes towards the increased numbers qualifying for food stamps now....

once those 2 things are taken out, the rest of the stimulus is cut more than half....

 

[Baruch Menachem]

LOL. Tax rates were already established for 2011. This IS a tax cut for those rates. What the rate is now is irrelevant. Keep spinning though.

Big Government Sophistry ^^^

Any rational taxpayer is able to see that, for the same level of income, he will pay more in taxes if the rates are not extended. When the amount of tax is higher next year vs. this year, it is an increase.

Ergo, you are an idiot.

:Note to self- You are dealing with people who stopped their education at high school:

What is the scheduled tax rate for next year? What is this proposal being voted on now?

Will it lower or raise the SCHEDULED tax rate for next year? Simple question.

Lets try this your way?

What is the rate this year?

What is the rate next year?

Is the rate higher next year than this year?

If something is bigger next period than the current period, is that an increase?

What is the current rate?

What is proposed rate the republicans are offering?

If a number is lower in the next period, that qualifies as a cut. If the number is the same, is that a cut?

If some car dealer tried to pull the same stunt on you that you are trying to pull here, how quickly would you call the cops on him?

 

[Care4all]

sorry. i don't see it that way...I see it this way:

what is the rate for next year if nothing is done?

what will the rate be if the tax cut extention bill is passed?

they HAVE TO LEGISLATE, and pass legislation in order for us to keep this stimulus tax cut going...if they do not do a thing, then we will have our taxes revert to what they were before the tax breaks of President Bush.....

if they were MEANT to be permanent, then they should have been legislated in that manner and not have put an expiration date on them, but since they did put an expiration....they were only temporary and were never meant to be permanent....it was a 'temporary markdown', in the retail business....

I do see how most people will not see this as a new tax cut, but this is exactly what it is...a new "temporary markdown"...that has to be approved by the buyer's Merchandise manager. (legislated and passed by congress)

 

[Revere]

You'd be thrown in jail as a retailer if you advertised the same price you sold at item at for ten years as a markdown.

 

[Care4all]

You'd be thrown in jail as a retailer if you advertised the same price you sold at item at for ten years as a markdown.

then why did the Republicans in power set it up that way?

 

[Article 15]

You continue to prove that you are a complete and utter ignoramus.

I nailed you and you know it.

No, you did not, you dim bulb.

They did not demand $2T in tax cuts. Continuing the current rates is preventing a Tax Increase, not a tax cut.

Now, go play in traffic with your little gang of Big Government Orwellians.

lol ...

Tis' you who is playing the rhetorical games.

The 2003 tax cuts weren't permanent.

The tax cuts of 2003 were set to expire and return to previous rates in 2011. Those rates were cut in this tax cut. It's a tax cut.

 

[Rozman]

It's kinda sad that the truth is getting a little bit lost with the Bush tax cuts expiring.
First of all the so called evil rich people are not getting a check from the government that the taxpayers
will be asked to pay for.The so called rich will NOT be given a tax INCREASE,that is what the Republicans want.The Republicans never said extend the time frame on the wealthy only and give a tax increase to the middle class.The Republicans did say in regard to the talk of extending unemployment benefits yet again where is the money coming from to pay for this.

MSNBC in particular and the main stream media in general who are in bed with the Libs are framing the argument that the rich are getting something extra that they don't deserve.Well in a way they are.They would be allowed to continue to keep more of their own money.Everybody's pissed in the administration about doing this because they feel robbed that they were cheated out of a chance to spend more taxpayer dollars.They probably had this money already spent.

Also not a lot of people on the left know that getting thrown into the mix that would get a tax hike are those making above $250,000.They are the small business owners everyone loves when they talk about who creates more jobs in the country but will be hurt by having their taxes raised.The left bristles when radio talk show folks say Obama doesn't want to create jobs....Well if he were to let the
job creators get punished with higher taxes then they have proven their point.

 

[Montrovant]

I nailed you and you know it.

No, you did not, you dim bulb.

They did not demand $2T in tax cuts. Continuing the current rates is preventing a Tax Increase, not a tax cut.

Now, go play in traffic with your little gang of Big Government Orwellians.

lol ...

Tis' you who is playing the rhetorical games.

The 2003 tax cuts weren't permanent.

The tax cuts of 2003 were set to expire and return to previous rates in 2011. Those rates were cut in this tax cut. It's a tax cut.

While I understand this explanation, it leads me to wonder : couldn't these tax cuts be extended temporarily, and when they were again set to expire, extended temporarily, etc. etc.....so that every so often there would be a 'tax cut' while the tax rates actually remain the same? We could have constant tax cuts, tax cuts over and over, without the actual tax rates ever changing. When looked at that way, it sounds ridiculous.

 

[editec]

Republicans Vow to Reject Pork-Filled Omnibus Spending Bill - FoxNews.com
show some balls Republicans show us some balls.

So, do you feel the same way about this pork laden compromise that Obama and GOP recently worked out?

That's going to increase the national debt by $800 billion.

What are you thoughts on that?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Ill believe it when I see it.
They are all A15 sissys as far as I can tell.

 

[Article 15]

Ill believe it when I see it.
They are all A15 sissys as far as I can tell.

That's sissy Iraq War vet to you, you bedwetting coward.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Dont ask dont tell .

 

[Article 15]

Dont ask dont tell .

I hear it's getting repealed so if that's what's got you all apprehensive about coming out from under the covers and actually fighting those you are so afraid of, the door's open. Your mommy can't come with you, sorry.

 

[editec]

I believe we'd be better of changing

Don't ask Don't tell

to

Don't ask, don't give a rat's ass.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Dont ask dont tell .

I hear it's getting repealed so if that's what's got you all apprehensive about coming out from under the covers and actually fighting those you are so afraid of, the door's open. Your mommy can't come with you, sorry.

Objecting to an ideology that calls for my death and explaining the scriptural details is not the same as being afraid .To fine a point for your mind to grasp apparently.