H.R. 5029 - Economic Freedom Act of 2010

[Cuyo]

The economy began tanking when Democrats took control of Congress. There's the problem right there

Good point....But the economy recovered when the Democrats took control of the Congress AND the White House

Theres the solution right there

Unemployment rate when Obama entered the White House: 7.8%
Rate today: 9.7%

Seems to be some misunderstanding here.

Ohh absolutely, but you may catch on eventually.

I doubt it. A partisan hack looks at Ribeye and says "Damn that is a partisan hack!"

 

[The Rabbi]

The economy began tanking when Democrats took control of Congress. There's the problem right there

Good point....But the economy recovered when the Democrats took control of the Congress AND the White House

Theres the solution right there

Unemployment rate when Obama entered the White House: 7.8%
Rate today: 9.7%

Seems to be some misunderstanding here.

Ohh absolutely, but you may catch on eventually.

I've already caught on that the Left is clueless, brainless, without honor or industry. What else is there to say??

 

[Cuyo]

Every tax cut has resulted in larger revenue to the government, not smaller. If they choose to over-spend that revenue, which is what happened, that isnt the fault of tax cuts.
The economy began tanking when Democrats took control of Congress. There's the problem right there.

The economy began tanking when Democrats took control of Congress. There's the problem right there

Good point....But the economy recovered when the Democrats took control of the Congress AND the White House

Theres the solution right there

Unemployment rate when Obama entered the White House: 7.8%
Rate today: 9.7%

Seems to be some misunderstanding here.

I guess in your little republican cheerleader bubble you live in, it wouldn't help much to explain this, and you might be a little too dumb to understand anyway. But I'm glad to try.

When Barack took office, the economy was hemorrhaging about 750,000 jobs a month, due to the meltdown caused by the Republicans. 3 months into his tenure, it was down to about 450,000 a month, and 3 months more, about 200,000 a month. Now yes, during this period, the aggregate Unemployment rate continued on to up trend, albiet much much slower than in the economy he inherited. So even though in reality the condition was improving, you and your contemporaries chose to focus on the aggregate statistic, which (incorrectly) made it appear that the problem was getting worse.

Now in 3 of the last 5 months, we've actually gained jobs, for the first time since February '08.

Now I'm not trying to be mean, bless your indignant little soul, so you don't have to go crying like a 5 year old to the moderators like you did last time. I'm just trying to point out that you are reverberating faulty information, and make sure that you're aware of it before you wind up looking foolish.

 

[The Rabbi]

The economy began tanking when Democrats took control of Congress. There's the problem right there

Good point....But the economy recovered when the Democrats took control of the Congress AND the White House

Theres the solution right there

Unemployment rate when Obama entered the White House: 7.8%
Rate today: 9.7%

Seems to be some misunderstanding here.

I guess in your little republican cheerleader bubble you live in, it wouldn't help much to explain this, and you might be a little too dumb to understand anyway. But I'm glad to try.

When Barack took office, the economy was hemorrhaging about 750,000 jobs a month, due to the meltdown caused by the Republicans. 3 months into his tenure, it was down to about 450,000 a month, and 3 months more, about 200,000 a month. Now yes, during this period, the aggregate Unemployment rate continued on to up trend, albiet much much slower than in the economy he inherited. So even though in reality the condition was improving, you and your contemporaries chose to focus on the aggregate statistic, which (incorrectly) made it appear that the problem was getting worse.

Now in 3 of the last 5 months, we've actually gained jobs, for the first time since February '08.

Now I'm not trying to be mean, bless your indignant little soul, so you don't have to go crying like a 5 year old to the moderators like you did last time. I'm just trying to point out that you are reverberating faulty information, and make sure that you're aware of it before you wind up looking foolish.

Please, don't paint yourself as the rational one here because you are clearly a partisan hack. Anyone who would write in a neg rep "suck my dick you little assclown" is clearly not playing with a full deck, in addition to violating TOS on this board.
The fact is that the economy lost many more jobs in the 2001 recession but the unemployment rate never went this high. That is because job creation was still strong.
Under "Barak" (I didnt know you were on a first name basis with Barry) that job creation has lagged badly. The last figure for job creation you cite includes many government jobs (which are a drain on the economy, not a help) including census worker jobs, which are temporary by nature.
So we have not gained jobs in any meaningful sense, and the unemployment rate continues to be stubbornly high. It will continue to be this way because Barack has pushed an agenda that punishes job creation, making it expensive and uncertain. ANd this will not change before November, when the Democrats will get the full force of electoral anger.

 

[uscitizen]

Rabbi calliing someone else a partisan hack???

 

[Cuyo]

Rabbi calliing someone else a partisan hack???

I don't know why he would make a conscious decision to engage me. You'd think he'd get tired of being my ***** by now.

 

[Cuyo]

Unemployment rate when Obama entered the White House: 7.8%
Rate today: 9.7%

Seems to be some misunderstanding here.

I guess in your little republican cheerleader bubble you live in, it wouldn't help much to explain this, and you might be a little too dumb to understand anyway. But I'm glad to try.

When Barack took office, the economy was hemorrhaging about 750,000 jobs a month, due to the meltdown caused by the Republicans. 3 months into his tenure, it was down to about 450,000 a month, and 3 months more, about 200,000 a month. Now yes, during this period, the aggregate Unemployment rate continued on to up trend, albiet much much slower than in the economy he inherited. So even though in reality the condition was improving, you and your contemporaries chose to focus on the aggregate statistic, which (incorrectly) made it appear that the problem was getting worse.

Now in 3 of the last 5 months, we've actually gained jobs, for the first time since February '08.

Now I'm not trying to be mean, bless your indignant little soul, so you don't have to go crying like a 5 year old to the moderators like you did last time. I'm just trying to point out that you are reverberating faulty information, and make sure that you're aware of it before you wind up looking foolish.

Please, don't paint yourself as the rational one here because you are clearly a partisan hack. Anyone who would write in a neg rep "suck my dick you little assclown" is clearly not playing with a full deck, in addition to violating TOS on this board.
The fact is that the economy lost many more jobs in the 2001 recession but the unemployment rate never went this high. That is because job creation was still strong.
Under "Barak" (I didnt know you were on a first name basis with Barry) that job creation has lagged badly. The last figure for job creation you cite includes many government jobs (which are a drain on the economy, not a help) including census worker jobs, which are temporary by nature.
So we have not gained jobs in any meaningful sense, and the unemployment rate continues to be stubbornly high. It will continue to be this way because Barack has pushed an agenda that punishes job creation, making it expensive and uncertain. ANd this will not change before November, when the Democrats will get the full force of electoral anger.

[lip quivers]
He...He... HE TOLD ME TO S*** HIS D***! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

 

[rightwinger]

Every tax cut has resulted in larger revenue to the government, not smaller. If they choose to over-spend that revenue, which is what happened, that isnt the fault of tax cuts.
The economy began tanking when Democrats took control of Congress. There's the problem right there.

The economy began tanking when Democrats took control of Congress. There's the problem right there

Good point....But the economy recovered when the Democrats took control of the Congress AND the White House

Theres the solution right there

Unemployment rate when Obama entered the White House: 7.8%
Rate today: 9.7%

Seems to be some misunderstanding here.

Not when you look at the trend there isn't...

Unemployment rate in Jan 2008 4.8%
Unemployment rate when Bush left office Jan 2009 7.8% (Increase of 62%)

Unemployment rate now 9.7% (increase of 24%)

When Bush left office he was losing 650,000 jobs a month. Last month we gained 62,000 jobs

 

[MaggieMae]

For those who say the Republicans are the party of 'no' and have no ideas, Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) introduced H.R. 5020 - Economic Freedom Act of 2010 - recently. It is still in committee and the Democratic majority probably will not allow it out of committee this year.

The bill has a number of supporters however and, should the Republicans achieve a majority in November, they will bring it to a vote on the House floor early in 2011.

Basically the bill proposes the following:

1) Eliminate the capital gains tax.
2) Reduce the corporate tax rate to 12.5%.
3) Permanently eliminate the death tax.
4) Provide immediate business expensing.
5) Reduce the payroll tax by half for 2010.
6) Repeal the "stimulus" spending (except for unemployment benefits and the tax cuts).
7) Terminate the TARP program.

Would you vote for this? Why or why not?

(1) through (5) would create a HUGE drop in revenue and add to the deficit.

(6) What about the stimulus money already spent? State jobs saved thereby? Just void all that by ripping out road improvements and firing people?

(7) So far, the taxpayer is making money off the TARP loan interest paid.

Where would Republicans cut spending? Defense? Hardly. Social Security and Medicare? I think not, unless they can craft both in a way that they won't lose their elder voting base.

 

[MaggieMae]

Absolutely PERFECT^^ !!!

 

[rightwinger]

Where would Republicans cut spending? Defense? Hardly. Social Security and Medicare? I think not, unless they can craft both in a way that they won't lose their elder voting base.

Let me guess.......Rob from the poor and give to the rich

 

[MaggieMae]

For those who say the Republicans are the party of 'no' and have no ideas, Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) introduced H.R. 5020 - Economic Freedom Act of 2010 - recently. It is still in committee and the Democratic majority probably will not allow it out of committee this year.

The bill has a number of supporters however and, should the Republicans achieve a majority in November, they will bring it to a vote on the House floor early in 2011.

Basically the bill proposes the following:

1) Eliminate the capital gains tax.
2) Reduce the corporate tax rate to 12.5%.
3) Permanently eliminate the death tax.
4) Provide immediate business expensing.
5) Reduce the payroll tax by half for 2010.
6) Repeal the "stimulus" spending (except for unemployment benefits and the tax cuts).
7) Terminate the TARP program.

Would you vote for this? Why or why not?

LOL, more of the same will not fix our problems.
this is the same old Republican mantra.

I knew any bill with freedom in the title would suck.

A better suggestion, make all income taxes a flat 12.5% with no deductions for ALL income.
Yes eliminate inheritance tax.
And that is all.

As long as we're suggesting a flat percentage on income, how about a flat 10% across the board cut in the budget of every single government agency? That oughta hurt both the left and the right, since they both have their favorite "don't-touch-that" piece of the budget pie.

 

[MaggieMae]

For those who say the Republicans are the party of 'no' and have no ideas, Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) introduced H.R. 5020 - Economic Freedom Act of 2010 - recently. It is still in committee and the Democratic majority probably will not allow it out of committee this year.

The bill has a number of supporters however and, should the Republicans achieve a majority in November, they will bring it to a vote on the House floor early in 2011.

Basically the bill proposes the following:

1) Eliminate the capital gains tax.
2) Reduce the corporate tax rate to 12.5%.
3) Permanently eliminate the death tax.
4) Provide immediate business expensing.
5) Reduce the payroll tax by half for 2010.
6) Repeal the "stimulus" spending (except for unemployment benefits and the tax cuts).
7) Terminate the TARP program.

Would you vote for this? Why or why not?

This bill as you have stated it would be the ultimate in fiscal irresponsibility. There is no way that the cost savings would support the decrease in taxes and I'm sure the sponsors know that. Over 500 billion of the Tarp money has been spent and over half the stimulus money Just how would you propose the feds get this money back?
If this bill contained realist spending cuts, I might be inclined to support it.



Bailout Scorecard | Eye on the Bailout | ProPublica
Stimulus:How Fast We're Spending Nearly $800 Billion | ProPublica

I can only presume when they say end TARP and stimulus funding, they mean what's left in both those accounts. However, the economy isn't stabilized yet, and it makes no sense to simply slam the door at this point. What if it takes another nose-dive? At least the cushion(s) are already there so that another wave of business closings and freshly unemployed as a result will be protected. Eventually, when the economy recovers enough, any funds remaining will be returned to Treasury. And it WILL recover.

 

[MaggieMae]

Where is the Economic Freedom? I see nothing that reduces the deficit, nothing to balance the budget, nothing on responsible spending.

Its just another irresponsible Republican tax cut

When you put people to WORK--they actually start paying taxes--which reduces the deficit. Unemployed Americans really do not pay income taxes---

This bill is a job creator. But this congress and administration would never go for it. Why? Because they would LOSE control of YOUR money.

"The problem with socialism is that government eventually runs out of other peoples money to spend"--Margaret Thatcher.

Where are you going to put them to work? Private enterprise can do short-term projects that create infrastructure jobs which will ease the pain of unemployment temporarily, but the bigger challenge is whether we have the toughness to take on whole new areas that will assure long-term employment, like in renewable energy projects.

We're facing the most imposing international competition in our lifetime, so while we argue over the best way to secure jobs in this country, we've forgotten that in order to once again become the most dynamic nation in the world, we need to also invest in education and innovation, and that will mean contributions by both the public and private sectors.

 

[MaggieMae]

For those who say the Republicans are the party of 'no' and have no ideas, Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) introduced H.R. 5020 - Economic Freedom Act of 2010 - recently. It is still in committee and the Democratic majority probably will not allow it out of committee this year.

The bill has a number of supporters however and, should the Republicans achieve a majority in November, they will bring it to a vote on the House floor early in 2011.

Basically the bill proposes the following:

1) Eliminate the capital gains tax.
2) Reduce the corporate tax rate to 12.5%.
3) Permanently eliminate the death tax.
4) Provide immediate business expensing.
5) Reduce the payroll tax by half for 2010.
6) Repeal the "stimulus" spending (except for unemployment benefits and the tax cuts).
7) Terminate the TARP program.

Would you vote for this? Why or why not?

I would repeal the unemployment extensions as well. They do nothing but give people the luxury of picking and choosing which jobs they want, extending unemployment instead of lowering it.
Tax cuts have to make a difference at the margin, as an encouragement to earn that next dollar of income. Otherwise they are simply negative.
Reagan was correct: You do not balance the budget and impose fiscal discipline by feeding the beast. You starve the beast of revenue and force cuts that way.

If unemployment benefits are dropped, and there are no jobs, that simply means those people will look to existing welfare programs, which are ALL paid for by taxpayers. I have to assume that people collecting unemploymet need to go through the weekly challenge of actually looking for work and proving that to their local unemployment offices. Extensions of unemployment benefits in this economy are absolutely necessary.

 

[rightwinger]

I love the name of this bill...."Economic Freedom Act"

It gives the wealthy the freedom from paying taxes

 

[Wry Catcher]

Rabbi calliing someone else a partisan hack???

Ignore Rabbi, he's nothing but a partisan hack.


One comment on this thread, anytime a bill is introduced with a title such as Economic Freedom Act be aware, it usually means the bills author hopes to obscure or distort with emotionalism, prejudice, etc. the real nature of the bill.

 

[uscitizen]

For those who say the Republicans are the party of 'no' and have no ideas, Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) introduced H.R. 5020 - Economic Freedom Act of 2010 - recently. It is still in committee and the Democratic majority probably will not allow it out of committee this year.

The bill has a number of supporters however and, should the Republicans achieve a majority in November, they will bring it to a vote on the House floor early in 2011.

Basically the bill proposes the following:

1) Eliminate the capital gains tax.
2) Reduce the corporate tax rate to 12.5%.
3) Permanently eliminate the death tax.
4) Provide immediate business expensing.
5) Reduce the payroll tax by half for 2010.
6) Repeal the "stimulus" spending (except for unemployment benefits and the tax cuts).
7) Terminate the TARP program.

Would you vote for this? Why or why not?

LOL, more of the same will not fix our problems.
this is the same old Republican mantra.

I knew any bill with freedom in the title would suck.

A better suggestion, make all income taxes a flat 12.5% with no deductions for ALL income.
Yes eliminate inheritance tax.
And that is all.

As long as we're suggesting a flat percentage on income, how about a flat 10% across the board cut in the budget of every single government agency? That oughta hurt both the left and the right, since they both have their favorite "don't-touch-that" piece of the budget pie.

whatever it works out to be on the percentage.
However it should require a 75% majority in both houses of congress to increase the tax rate. And the govt should not be able to spend any more than it takes in without a 75% majority for each bugetary year is overspends.

But that is all idealism and will never happen.

 

[topspin]

at least they added good jokes to the just no. thanks that is hillarious!!!

 

[MaggieMae]

When you put people to WORK--they actually start paying taxes--which reduces the deficit. Unemployed Americans really do not pay income taxes---

This bill is a job creator. But this congress and administration would never go for it. Why? Because they would LOSE control of YOUR money.

"The problem with socialism is that government eventually runs out of other peoples money to spend"--Margaret Thatcher.

"Fool me once, shame on you.....fool me twice, shame on me"

How many times do you think we will fall for this "Cut taxes on the rich to create jobs" bullshit?

We bought the Republican line, we gave them the White House and Congress to show us how their economic theory would work.

The rich kept the money and got richer and sent the jobs overseas

Every tax cut has resulted in larger revenue to the government, not smaller. If they choose to over-spend that revenue, which is what happened, that isnt the fault of tax cuts.
The economy began tanking when Democrats took control of Congress. There's the problem right there.

Surely you jest.


During 2007, earmark spending dropped to $13.2 billion, a significant decrease from the $29 billion spent in 2006.

Following the Democratic victories in the 2006 midterm elections, congressional Republicans declined to pass the nine remaining government spending bills for fiscal year 2007 (which began on October 1, 2006), placing the burden on the incoming Democratic majority.

In 2007, new proposed spending by the Democrats included increases for the Veterans Administration (around $45 billion), passage of the Child Healthcare Act (which Bush had vetoed), and a transportation bill that increased what the BA had proposed).