Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
That's not what I got from reading this. It seems that there is a lot of common ground between the two parties on where cuts can happen. That's actually a good sign. The problem seems to be with the GOP continuing to protect the uber-wealthy, even while screaming about needing to reduce the deficit. If we are to have shared sacrifice, and the social programs being cut mainly affect the poor and middle class, then where is the sacrifice from the wealthy?
Bought by unions, which are, you know, people, is much more preferable than being bought by corporations, which are, you know, NOT people.
Bought by unions, which are, you know, people, is much more preferable than being bought by corporations, which are, you know, NOT people.
Corporations aren't people? That has to be one of the dumbest remarks ever posted in this forum. Corporations consist of thousands of people all working together to serve the public. Union thugs only serve themselves.
Baaaa, Baaaa? How much do you think I pay in union dues? I am a member of AFSCME. Take a guess motherfucker? BTW... Union dues do not go to a Union's PAC.... that is a special(and Voluntary) fund.... in AFSCME, it's called "VIP". Our Actual Union dues are for protecting our benefits.
That's the problem with you ignorant son of a bitches.... you don't have a clue about much of anything that FOX doesn't tell you.
Sorry, my bad. It was the GOP that was for this funding. Dems wanted to defund NASCAR sponsorship by the Pentagon.
My mistake. You were right. I did contradict myself.
Meaningless numbers are meaningless.
If I make $100K a year and am taxed 20% and you make $10K a year and are taxed 50%, I pay $20,000 and you pay $5,000 for a total of $25,000 in a total taxes. But, oh my God! I pay 80% of the tax burden!! Clearly I need a tax cut! I am over taxed!!
You do realize we can't cut discretionary spending enough to balance the budget. You know this right?
Republicans never demanded spending cuts to raise the debt ceiling under Bush
As Think Progress documents, the Republicans in Congress voted 19 times to increase the debt limit under the presidency of George W. Bush. The debt limit was increased by over $4 trillion during the Bush years, and the Republicans required no offsetting spending cuts or tax increases in order to raise the debt ceiling. The current big four Republicans leaders (Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Senate Minority Whip Jon Ky) all voted yea for well over $3 trillion in debt limit increases without any demands for spending cuts.
Continue reading on Examiner.com Republicans never demanded spending cuts to raise the debt ceiling under Bush - National Political Buzz | Examiner.com Republicans never demanded spending cuts to raise the debt ceiling under Bush - National Political Buzz | Examiner.com
This says it all as far as I'm concerned.
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q27/uhhuh35/CeilingWhacks.jpg[IMG][/quote]
One of the reasons some of us lefties sometimes think you righties aren't very smart is because of these kind of posts. It obvious that you folks think that she didn't know what she was saying, and we know exactly what she meant. It is the way that big bills are passed.
After a bill passes the House it is passed to the Senate. While in the Senate they might or might not add or subtract something from the bill. Then the bill goes to reconciliation where it might or might not be changed some more. So you see, sometimes it is impossible to know what is in a bill until it is passed or very close to being passed. So she wasn't making some weird kind of gaffe. She said exactly what she meant and now shows us that some people on the right have no idea of what a bill goes through after leaving the House.
5,000 is a fucking lot to someone who makes 10K...
Hey, the guy making $10K could pay 25% tax then. It actually makes my example even more glaring as he would pay $2,500 and the other guy's burden would be 89%. In that case, would you still think the $100K guy needs a tax cut?
We've already been down this path, stupid...
You just want wealth redistribution like a good little socialist...
Man, you're stupid....
Wonkbook: The debt-ceiling deal so far - Ezra Klein - The Washington Post
A bit more information has trickled out over the last few days detailing the exact state of the budget negotiations when they collapsed. Both sides, as they often said, were shooting for about $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years. They'd already agreed on around $1 trillion in spending cuts and were making good progress on the rest of it. But Democrats insisted that $400 billion -- so, 17 percent -- of the package be tax increases. And that's when Republicans walked.
Specifically, the Obama administration was looking at a rule that lets businesses value their inventory at less than they bought it for in order to lower their tax burden, a loophole that lets hedge-fund managers count their income as capital gains and pay a 15 percent marginal tax rate, the tax treatment of private jets, oil and gas subsidies, and a limit on itemized deductions for the wealthy.
It's almost not worth going into the details on those particular tax changes because the Republican position has held that the details don't matter: well-designed tax increases won't be looked at any more favorably than poorly designed tax increases. The point, Republicans say, is that there can't be any tax increases, full stop.
Is there any doubt now where the loyalties of the GOP lie?
No new taxes without massive spending cut's means just that...which part of that is that you don't understand? We don't have a tax problem we have a spending problem. What part of that so utterly confuses the left?
Meaningless numbers are meaningless.
If I make $100K a year and am taxed 20% and you make $10K a year and are taxed 50%, I pay $20,000 and you pay $5,000 for a total of $25,000 in a total taxes. But, oh my God! I pay 80% of the tax burden!! Clearly I need a tax cut! I am over taxed!!
The only problem with your scenario is that the buy making $25,000 pays no taxes.
We don't have a tax problem we have a spending problem. What part of that so utterly confuses the left?
Lowest. Taxes. In. 60. Years.
We don't have a tax problem we have a spending problem. What part of that so utterly confuses the left?
Lowest. Taxes. In. 60. Years.
Highest Spending short of the great depression what part of that is so utterly confounding?
I am a fiscal conservative who feels that Boehner and the Elders have not stood their ground on demanding real cuts and a balanced budget where the new Republicans take their job more seriously and want to represent their constituency as they voted them in...to make a difference for the country.
That being said, I see problems with not taxing the rich more but allowing them still to hire, enough to cure our unemploymnent problem.
We have to remember when our soldiers come home, there will be more leaving the service and looking for jobs that just won't be there. We can't wear Dem or Rep blinders any longer. We have to look all around us.
Keep watching Greece. Our future lies there if we aren't careful. We have to work together. Let's forget the party labels.
I agree!
One of the reasons some of us lefties sometimes think you righties aren't very smart is because of these kind of posts. It obvious that you folks think that she didn't know what she was saying, and we know exactly what she meant. It is the way that big bills are passed.
After a bill passes the House it is passed to the Senate. While in the Senate they might or might not add or subtract something from the bill. Then the bill goes to reconciliation where it might or might not be changed some more. So you see, sometimes it is impossible to know what is in a bill until it is passed or very close to being passed. So she wasn't making some weird kind of gaffe. She said exactly what she meant and now shows us that some people on the right have no idea of what a bill goes through after leaving the House.
There are very wealthy people out there who actually understand that providing for a decent welfare of society is in their own best interests, and it has nothing to do with "Socialism"; it has to do with making certain that the society has the ability to grow so the pie can continue to get bigger. That is how true wealth is built, not by limiting the pie and seeing to it that a very small percentage of society controls the vast majority of the wealth.
Wrong, again for the umpteenth time. We have a spending and revenue problem, which is a tax problem. Taxes are too low and that is the main reason we have this astronomical debt. At the same time, spending has gotten out of control. We must both cut spending and increase revenue. What part of that so utterly confuses the right?
