while repugs are held in back seat car by teabaggers car goes over cliff

[Missourian]

I am for that as are a couple math-saavy economists. The only caveat being that the econ must gain more steam first then, eliminate them all

Using that logic...we should wait and raise them all at the same time...and in the mean time, we can work on cutting spending...as THAT is the real problem.

The wealthy have never had it so good aside from the former Gilded Age. The wealth disparities are only surpassed by those of the aforementioned Gilded Age
Plutocracy reborn

Great!

The Republicans offered raising taxes on Millionaires and Billionaires...Obama and the Democrats in the Senate said NO.

So, even if we for the moment suspend the dictum that it is not the role of government to redistribute wealth, this argument is STILL fail.

 

[Missourian]

I realize you are just humoring me. Otherwise you would put some thought into your replies.

This is the land of opportunity. Not the land of screw over the system because you have the wealth and the power to do so.

Only in irrational liberal-land is paid over a third of ones income to the government "screwing over the system".

Your liberal masters whispered that line in your ear and you regurgitated on cue likes one of Pavlov's dogs.

What does that mean exactly?

How are they "screwing over the system" by paying 35% income tax?

In your own words please...exercise those brain cells for a change.

See my posts #46 and #48 on 'Liberals Forced to Eat their Poop' which I believe makes my point sufficiently.

If this is your idea of a sufficient explaination, I'd hate to ponder your definition of insufficient.

Here are the quotes, reproduced in there entirety...

You're very right. The poor need to give it to the defense industry to spend on weapon systems.

If the poor does not pay their fair share we will no longer be AMERICANS as our FREEDOM will be lost to the commies, or terrorists, or -fill in the blank-.

Dollars and Tanks: Perverse Incentives for Government Contracts
The jets would cost taxpayers $396 billion, including research and development, if the Pentagon sticks to its plan to build 2,443 by the late 2030s. That would be nearly four times as much as any other weapons system and two-thirds of the $589 billion the United States has spent on the war in Afghanistan. The military is also desperately trying to figure out how to reduce the long-term costs of operating the planes, now projected at $1.1 trillion.

(The grey section is a cut and paste...not an original thought.)

THIS IS IT!

This is your well thought out explanation!

Good Grief.

 

[LockeJaw]

"while repugs are held in back seat car by teabaggers car goes over cliff"

What in the HECK kind of title is this?

 

[emptystep]

Only in irrational liberal-land is paid over a third of ones income to the government "screwing over the system".

Your liberal masters whispered that line in your ear and you regurgitated on cue likes one of Pavlov's dogs.

What does that mean exactly?

How are they "screwing over the system" by paying 35% income tax?

In your own words please...exercise those brain cells for a change.

See my posts #46 and #48 on 'Liberals Forced to Eat their Poop' which I believe makes my point sufficiently.

If this is your idea of a sufficient explaination, I'd hate to ponder your definition of insufficient.

Here are the quotes, reproduced in there entirety...

You're very right. The poor need to give it to the defense industry to spend on weapon systems.

If the poor does not pay their fair share we will no longer be AMERICANS as our FREEDOM will be lost to the commies, or terrorists, or -fill in the blank-.

Dollars and Tanks: Perverse Incentives for Government Contracts
The jets would cost taxpayers $396 billion, including research and development, if the Pentagon sticks to its plan to build 2,443 by the late 2030s. That would be nearly four times as much as any other weapons system and two-thirds of the $589 billion the United States has spent on the war in Afghanistan. The military is also desperately trying to figure out how to reduce the long-term costs of operating the planes, now projected at $1.1 trillion.

(The grey section is a cut and paste...not an original thought.)

THIS IS IT!

This is your well thought out explanation!

Good Grief.

Let's take Scott Brown, Senator from Massachusetts, for example. Who paid for his election? Rich people. Who voted for him? You average, every day, man on the street person of Massachusetts. Now Brown goes to Washington. For whom is he working? Not the people who voted for him. The people who paid for his election. Thereby Brown's votes are for policies which help the rich disproportionately than the less rich. Now it comes up that the country needs more tax revenue. Once again how I Brown going to vote? He will vote so the less rich pay a disproportionately larger amount of taxes. All the while selling 'Scott Brown, He's for us." This is not a Brown thing. It is a republican thing. Up until this point they were able to pull it off. The situation at the moment forces them to make a choice and so far they are making the wrong one.

 

[emptystep]

"while repugs are held in back seat car by teabaggers car goes over cliff"

What in the HECK kind of title is this?

In hind sight the 'back seat' part had too innuendo in it. I simply meant that they were not at the wheel. I don't have as twisted mind as sometimes given credit for. Or if I do it is mostly subconscious. Unfortunately titles can not be edited.

 

[Missourian]

See my posts #46 and #48 on 'Liberals Forced to Eat their Poop' which I believe makes my point sufficiently.

If this is your idea of a sufficient explaination, I'd hate to ponder your definition of insufficient.

Here are the quotes, reproduced in there entirety...

If the poor does not pay their fair share we will no longer be AMERICANS as our FREEDOM will be lost to the commies, or terrorists, or -fill in the blank-.

Dollars and Tanks: Perverse Incentives for Government Contracts
The jets would cost taxpayers $396 billion, including research and development, if the Pentagon sticks to its plan to build 2,443 by the late 2030s. That would be nearly four times as much as any other weapons system and two-thirds of the $589 billion the United States has spent on the war in Afghanistan. The military is also desperately trying to figure out how to reduce the long-term costs of operating the planes, now projected at $1.1 trillion.

(The grey section is a cut and paste...not an original thought.)

THIS IS IT!

This is your well thought out explanation!

Good Grief.

Let's take Scott Brown, Senator from Massachusetts, for example. Who paid for his election? Rich people. Who voted for him? You average, every day, man on the street person of Massachusetts. Now Brown goes to Washington. For whom is he working? Not the people who voted for him. The people who paid for his election. Thereby Brown's votes are for policies which help the rich disproportionately than the less rich. Now it comes up that the country needs more tax revenue. Once again how I Brown going to vote? He will vote so the less rich pay a disproportionately larger amount of taxes. All the while selling 'Scott Brown, He's for us." This is not a Brown thing. It is a republican thing. Up until this point they were able to pull it off. The situation at the moment forces them to make a choice and so far they are making the wrong one.

Now we are making some headway.

Is it possible that the country is just wasting too much of the revenue it already receives?

And if that is the case, is it possible that Scott Brown would like to see a reduction in spending BEFORE we raise taxes?

Obama and the Democrats don't want higher revenue so they can reduce the deficit or reduce borrowing from China...they want it so they can spend it on NEW programs and initiatives.

And we'll be even FURTHER in the hole, because as we have seen, it is damn near a political impossibility to cut any spending at all.

Even spending cuts that aren't real cuts at all, only reductions in projected growth.

 

[blackhawk]

One of the biggest sticking points of a deal with the level at which taxes will go up. The level the President is sticking to is $250K while the republicans think that is too low.

Here's a math question for those who think the $250 limit is going to make the wealthy go broke.

If for up to a dollar I pay 5% tax and I make $1 for the year at the end of the year I would own $0.05 tax.
If for anything above $1 I owe 10% tax and I make $2 for the year, how much tax do I owe at the end of the year?

It is just so hard to bring those guys out of the back seat.

Yeah the left keeps vilifying the rich and talking about them paying their fair share and continues to ignore the fact the main problem here is has been and will continue to be government spending until they come to terms with this reality all they are doing is this.

 

[emptystep]

If this is your idea of a sufficient explaination, I'd hate to ponder your definition of insufficient.

Here are the quotes, reproduced in there entirety...






(The grey section is a cut and paste...not an original thought.)

THIS IS IT!

This is your well thought out explanation!

Good Grief.

Let's take Scott Brown, Senator from Massachusetts, for example. Who paid for his election? Rich people. Who voted for him? You average, every day, man on the street person of Massachusetts. Now Brown goes to Washington. For whom is he working? Not the people who voted for him. The people who paid for his election. Thereby Brown's votes are for policies which help the rich disproportionately than the less rich. Now it comes up that the country needs more tax revenue. Once again how I Brown going to vote? He will vote so the less rich pay a disproportionately larger amount of taxes. All the while selling 'Scott Brown, He's for us." This is not a Brown thing. It is a republican thing. Up until this point they were able to pull it off. The situation at the moment forces them to make a choice and so far they are making the wrong one.

Now we are making some headway.

Is it possible that the country is just wasting too much of the revenue it already receives?

And if that is the case, is it possible that Scott Brown would like to see a reduction in spending BEFORE we raise taxes?

Obama and the Democrats don't want higher revenue so they can reduce the deficit or reduce borrowing from China...they want it so they can spend it on NEW programs and initiatives.

And we'll be even FURTHER in the hole, because as we have seen, it is damn near a political impossibility to cut any spending at all.

Even spending cuts that aren't real cuts at all, only reductions in projected growth.

This all is veering way off course, to continue my analogy. What you say may or may not have any merit or all the merit in the world. The issue of the moment is that little clock in my sig. Republicans keep that clock ticking based largely on the refusal of coming to the $250K point on raising taxes. I think I have stated adequately why $250K is a perfectly reasonable place to start the progress tax increase.

 

[emptystep]

One of the biggest sticking points of a deal with the level at which taxes will go up. The level the President is sticking to is $250K while the republicans think that is too low.

Here's a math question for those who think the $250 limit is going to make the wealthy go broke.

If for up to a dollar I pay 5% tax and I make $1 for the year at the end of the year I would own $0.05 tax.
If for anything above $1 I owe 10% tax and I make $2 for the year, how much tax do I owe at the end of the year?

It is just so hard to bring those guys out of the back seat.

Yeah the left keeps vilifying the rich and talking about them paying their fair share and continues to ignore the fact the main problem here is has been and will continue to be government spending until they come to terms with this reality all they are doing is this.

There are two days, seven hours, and fifty-six minutes left before we go over the cliff. The validity of you point is not at issue in what remains of a chance not to go over the cliff.

 

[Missourian]

Let's take Scott Brown, Senator from Massachusetts, for example. Who paid for his election? Rich people. Who voted for him? You average, every day, man on the street person of Massachusetts. Now Brown goes to Washington. For whom is he working? Not the people who voted for him. The people who paid for his election. Thereby Brown's votes are for policies which help the rich disproportionately than the less rich. Now it comes up that the country needs more tax revenue. Once again how I Brown going to vote? He will vote so the less rich pay a disproportionately larger amount of taxes. All the while selling 'Scott Brown, He's for us." This is not a Brown thing. It is a republican thing. Up until this point they were able to pull it off. The situation at the moment forces them to make a choice and so far they are making the wrong one.

Now we are making some headway.

Is it possible that the country is just wasting too much of the revenue it already receives?

And if that is the case, is it possible that Scott Brown would like to see a reduction in spending BEFORE we raise taxes?

Obama and the Democrats don't want higher revenue so they can reduce the deficit or reduce borrowing from China...they want it so they can spend it on NEW programs and initiatives.

And we'll be even FURTHER in the hole, because as we have seen, it is damn near a political impossibility to cut any spending at all.

Even spending cuts that aren't real cuts at all, only reductions in projected growth.

This all is veering way off course, to continue my analogy. What you say may or may not have any merit or all the merit in the world. The issue of the moment is that little clock in my sig. Republicans keep that clock ticking based largely on the refusal of coming to the $250K point on raising taxes. I think I have stated adequately why $250K is a perfectly reasonable place to start the progress tax increase.

No canned responses available from ThinkProgress?

Obama said millionaires and billionaires, not thousand-aires...he build his case on class warfare, just as you have.

The Republicans offer him a tax on millionaires and billionaires, and he said no.

Your reasoning why $250K is a perfectly reasonable place to start is that Obama told you it was.

Sorry, but that's only adequate justification for mindless drones.

 

[emptystep]

Now we are making some headway.

Is it possible that the country is just wasting too much of the revenue it already receives?

And if that is the case, is it possible that Scott Brown would like to see a reduction in spending BEFORE we raise taxes?

Obama and the Democrats don't want higher revenue so they can reduce the deficit or reduce borrowing from China...they want it so they can spend it on NEW programs and initiatives.

And we'll be even FURTHER in the hole, because as we have seen, it is damn near a political impossibility to cut any spending at all.

Even spending cuts that aren't real cuts at all, only reductions in projected growth.

This all is veering way off course, to continue my analogy. What you say may or may not have any merit or all the merit in the world. The issue of the moment is that little clock in my sig. Republicans keep that clock ticking based largely on the refusal of coming to the $250K point on raising taxes. I think I have stated adequately why $250K is a perfectly reasonable place to start the progress tax increase.

No canned responses available from ThinkProgress?

Obama said millionaires and billionaires, not thousand-aires...he build his case on class warfare, just as you have.

The Republicans offer him a tax on millionaires and billionaires, and he said no.

Your reasoning why $250K is a perfectly reasonable place to start is that Obama told you it was.

Sorry, but that's only adequate justification for mindless drones.

So Obama picked a number lower than he felt needed be because....
Class warfare?

 

[blackhawk]

One of the biggest sticking points of a deal with the level at which taxes will go up. The level the President is sticking to is $250K while the republicans think that is too low.

Here's a math question for those who think the $250 limit is going to make the wealthy go broke.

If for up to a dollar I pay 5% tax and I make $1 for the year at the end of the year I would own $0.05 tax.
If for anything above $1 I owe 10% tax and I make $2 for the year, how much tax do I owe at the end of the year?

It is just so hard to bring those guys out of the back seat.

Yeah the left keeps vilifying the rich and talking about them paying their fair share and continues to ignore the fact the main problem here is has been and will continue to be government spending until they come to terms with this reality all they are doing is this.

There are two days, seven hours, and fifty-six minutes left before we go over the cliff. The validity of you point is not at issue in what remains of a chance not to go over the cliff.

Going over this cliff is irrelevant if the big picture issue are not dealt with so what if you get some half ass stop gap deal in the next two day's all that means is you have again kicked the can down the road for a few months maybe a year at most big freaking deal.

 

[Missourian]

This all is veering way off course, to continue my analogy. What you say may or may not have any merit or all the merit in the world. The issue of the moment is that little clock in my sig. Republicans keep that clock ticking based largely on the refusal of coming to the $250K point on raising taxes. I think I have stated adequately why $250K is a perfectly reasonable place to start the progress tax increase.

No canned responses available from ThinkProgress?

Obama said millionaires and billionaires, not thousand-aires...he build his case on class warfare, just as you have.

The Republicans offer him a tax on millionaires and billionaires, and he said no.

Your reasoning why $250K is a perfectly reasonable place to start is that Obama told you it was.

Sorry, but that's only adequate justification for mindless drones.

So Obama picked a number lower than he felt needed be because....
Class warfare?

I'll spell it out for you...so you can't help but understand.

Here is Obama selling his tax hike...

President Barack Obama said in a Rose Garden speech on Monday that he was not engaging in "class warfare" by demanding increases in taxes on people he referred to three times as "millionaires and billionaires."

"During this past decade, profligate spending in Washington, tax cuts for multi-millionaires and billionaires, the cost of two wars, and the recession turned a record surplus into a yawning deficit, and that left us with a big pile of IOUs," Obama said at the beginning of his speech.


"And any reform should follow another simple principle: Middle-class families shouldn’t pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires," Obama said a moment later. "It’s hard to argue against that. Warren Buffett’s secretary shouldn’t pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. There is no justification for it."


Obama: 'This Is Not Class Warfare;' It's Fairness for 'Millionaires and Billionaires' | CNS News


There is a video at the link.


​

So the softheaded say "Yeah, those danged millionaires and billionaires, they need to pay more".


The Republicans decide to give Obama what he wants...a tax increase on millionaires and billionaires...


According to you, THOSE are the evil folks Republicans are protecting...but the Speaker of the House offers to compromise and raise taxes on those evil Millionaires and Billionaires that you say are screwing the system, and what does Obama do?


He says NO!...He'll VETO a tax hike on only millionaires and billionaires...he must have a tax on Thousand-aires too!

"The president's comments came soon after the White House announced that Obama would veto a proposed GOP bill that would raise tax rates for Americans making more than $1 million if it reaches his desk."


Obama, Boehner continue stalemate on 'fiscal cliff'


​

This is where your house of cards falls apart.


If the evil Republicans work for the evil rich, why would they propose to raise taxes on them?


And If Obama wants to use taxes to redistribute wealth from the super rich, why would he proclaim he would veto this tax increase on the super wealthy?


I don't expect a rational response from you...just putting it out there for others to read.

 

[emptystep]

No canned responses available from ThinkProgress?

Obama said millionaires and billionaires, not thousand-aires...he build his case on class warfare, just as you have.

The Republicans offer him a tax on millionaires and billionaires, and he said no.

Your reasoning why $250K is a perfectly reasonable place to start is that Obama told you it was.

Sorry, but that's only adequate justification for mindless drones.

So Obama picked a number lower than he felt needed be because....
Class warfare?

I'll spell it out for you...so you can't help but understand.

Here is Obama selling his tax hike...

President Barack Obama said in a Rose Garden speech on Monday that he was not engaging in "class warfare" by demanding increases in taxes on people he referred to three times as "millionaires and billionaires."

"During this past decade, profligate spending in Washington, tax cuts for multi-millionaires and billionaires, the cost of two wars, and the recession turned a record surplus into a yawning deficit, and that left us with a big pile of IOUs," Obama said at the beginning of his speech.


"And any reform should follow another simple principle: Middle-class families shouldn’t pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires," Obama said a moment later. "It’s hard to argue against that. Warren Buffett’s secretary shouldn’t pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. There is no justification for it."


Obama: 'This Is Not Class Warfare;' It's Fairness for 'Millionaires and Billionaires' | CNS News


There is a video at the link.


​

So the softheaded say "Yeah, those danged millionaires and billionaires, they need to pay more".


The Republicans decide to give Obama what he wants...a tax increase on millionaires and billionaires...


According to you, THOSE are the evil folks Republicans are protecting...but the Speaker of the House offers to compromise and raise taxes on those evil Millionaires and Billionaires that you say are screwing the system, and what does Obama do?


He says NO!...He'll VETO a tax hike on only millionaires and billionaires...he must have a tax on Thousand-aires too!

"The president's comments came soon after the White House announced that Obama would veto a proposed GOP bill that would raise tax rates for Americans making more than $1 million if it reaches his desk."


Obama, Boehner continue stalemate on 'fiscal cliff'


​

This is where your house of cards falls apart.


If the evil Republicans work for the evil rich, why would they propose to raise taxes on them?


And If Obama wants to use taxes to redistribute wealth from the super rich, why would he proclaim he would veto this tax increase on the super wealthy?


I don't expect a rational response from you...just putting it out there for others to read.

Good, cause you aren't getting one.

 

[Darkwind]

One of the biggest sticking points of a deal with the level at which taxes will go up. The level the President is sticking to is $250K while the republicans think that is too low.

Here's a math question for those who think the $250 limit is going to make the wealthy go broke.

If for up to a dollar I pay 5% tax and I make $1 for the year at the end of the year I would own $0.05 tax.
If for anything above $1 I owe 10% tax and I make $2 for the year, how much tax do I owe at the end of the year?

It is just so hard to bring those guys out of the back seat.

All of our politicians should follow T.E.A. party policies.

Here is a better exercise for you.

While the Dems may get some tax increases on the top 2%, guess what? IT won't do a ******* thing to solve the problems we face. This is nothing more than ego stroking.

Do the ******* math. You can take ALL of their income and it won't pay for more than 8 days spending.

I swear, people who think taxes are the answer are mindless sheep, dancing to their puppeteers wishes.

Cut the ******* spending!

That is what every American should be demanding, and every politician should adhere to.

Yet you people keep electing the fuckers.

The people holding up the budget the most are people squealing about having their taxes raised, not about cutting spending. Just another day in the federal government.

You aren't quite sure of your surroundings on a hour by hour basis, are you?

The hold up is that Democrats will not move anywhere toward the spending cuts that are needed.

Spending cuts MUST be the significant portion of any deal. Then comes reform, then comes taxes.

 

[emptystep]

I was mostly kidding with the cliff clock in my sig but I don't know. Looks like we may very well go over after all.

 

[emptystep]

I go neg rep on my use of 'teabaggers' in the title. I actually agree with the neg. I think it is a very legitimate use of the neg rep. Someone who probably knows much more about subject than I do objected to by characterization.

I was thinking over how exactly the title got worded and it is just wrong on so many levels. I will try to be a little more discreet in the future.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

One of the biggest sticking points of a deal with the level at which taxes will go up. The level the President is sticking to is $250K while the republicans think that is too low.

Here's a math question for those who think the $250 limit is going to make the wealthy go broke.

If for up to a dollar I pay 5% tax and I make $1 for the year at the end of the year I would own $0.05 tax.
If for anything above $1 I owe 10% tax and I make $2 for the year, how much tax do I owe at the end of the year?

It is just so hard to bring those guys out of the back seat.

Yep, just look at the cuts they turned their noses up at just because they can't control the radicals.

The GOP would not be struggling to survive if they had stood up to the potters. Now they're owned by big money and have become the GObP.

OTOH, its not like they didn't know what they were doing.

What we've seen is that the pubpots would sell this country for for a fat nickel and the rw's vote for that to happen.

(Pssst ... That's why they lost. )

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I go neg rep on my use of 'teabaggers' in the title. I actually agree with the neg. I think it is a very legitimate use of the neg rep. Someone who probably knows much more about subject than I do objected to by characterization.

I was thinking over how exactly the title got worded and it is just wrong on so many levels. I will try to be a little more discreet in the future.

Considering what they have done, they deserve it.

And a lot worse.

 

[emptystep]

I go neg rep on my use of 'teabaggers' in the title. I actually agree with the neg. I think it is a very legitimate use of the neg rep. Someone who probably knows much more about subject than I do objected to by characterization.

I was thinking over how exactly the title got worded and it is just wrong on so many levels. I will try to be a little more discreet in the future.

Considering what they have done, they deserve it.

And a lot worse.

Oh, I agree. It is just the combination of all the words of the title that add up to some pretty mind boggling conclusions. Something warrior would be proud of.