The real party of NO, the GOP, steps it up

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

I would think revenue is an indicator of jobs.

Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts-and the Facts

Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low.
Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.

Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.

Myth #3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.
Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues.

Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.

Myth #5: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits.
Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases.

Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.
Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.

Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.
Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.

Myth #8: Tax cuts help the economy by "putting money in people's pockets."
Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.

Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.

Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...-bush-tax-cuts

It's not about facts. It's not about increasing revenue either.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Single payer was overwhelmingly supported by 70% of the public at the start of the healthcare debate.

Then the lies started about "death panels".



You really don't pay much attention to politics on a daily basis, do you?

Actually it was well before that. Here's the quote from November 6th:

"The White House signaled Wednesday that President Barack Obama is ready to cut a deal on the Bush-era tax cuts — accepting a temporary extension of the cuts for the wealthiest Americans to win renewal of tax breaks for middle-class taxpayers."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44990.html and elsewhere.



Not in the eyes of his base. We'll see.

While admitting that I doubt the accuracy of your 70% number, I didn't know that the public was going to be voting on the measure. They had a majority in the House, Senate and Presidency and single payer was never close except in the wet dreams of the huffington crowd.

Uh your quote says "is ready to cut a deal". It isnt as though he was passing them as a matter of policy. He was negotiating. You know like give and take? It is part of being a politician.

His base? He won the election because he captured (tricked?)disgruntled Republicans and independents. Does anyone seriously believe that the lefties are going to try to run some schmuck like Feinstein against him? Or that they will suddenly vote against him in the 2012 election?

He is finally making deals that can only benefit him. The left is voting for him anyway, he can claim that he is a compromiser which is what indy's want and he can claim victory if the economy moves in the right direction and can blame the GOP for forcing this policy on him if the economy tanks.

[Riot]

The point of the healthcare debate is that Obama started too far towards compromise. Just like he did before this, saying he's willing to extend tax cuts for the rich before negotiations even started.

Obama got a second massive stimulus bill out of this, which will certainly help the economy and jobs, but nothing here is paid for. Nothing. I think that is a huge mistake.

I hope the House progressives holds out for eliminating tax cuts for those over 1 million just to pay for half of it. Shoot, go for 2 million. That'll still pay for nearly half of it.

The small business community should be far more thrilled with what Obama did here for them, than what the GOP did for the minority of the richest (making sure millionaires and billionaires keep their extra $25,000 a year).

Here's a reasonable summation from YahooFinance (Greg somebody, their financial columnist)

It's taken two years, but President Obama and Congressional Republicans may finally have found something they can agree on. Over the weekend, the contours of a deal on taxes emerged, and Obama announced details of the compromise Monday evening. The existing tax rates on income and investments will stay where they are for the next two years, rather than rise on January 1. In return, President Obama won a bunch of concessions on short-term fiscal stimulus.

To a large degree, the deal represents a shift in strategy and tactics by the White House. But this isn't a sign of Obama tacking to the center, or even triangulating between Democrats and Republicans. It's a sign of Obama tacking toward reality. For the past two years, Obama & Co. had wagered that simply governing, proposing, and enacting solutions to long-term problems (health care, the bankruptcy of most of the domestic auto industry and financial sector) and presiding over incremental improvements from the horrible situation they inherited would be sufficient to maintain popularity and prospects for re-election. That theory came apart with the big losses in November.

Once the shock of the November election wore off, Obama recognized that the slow pace of recovery and jobs growth are the greatest threats to a second presidential term. And so he was eager to cut a deal on taxes. Never mind that the tax cuts were designed to expire at the end of this year. And never mind that keeping them intact on the highest earners would have little impact on overall economic growth. His problem is that he believes — and virtually every economist agrees — that the economy needs more stimulus. But throughout 2010, even with Democratic control of both Houses of Congress, the administration found that further fiscal stimulus was foreclosed. Tax credits for new jobs and extended unemployment benefits were stymied by the willingness of the Republican Senate caucus to hold once-routine measures hostage. That left the Federal Reserve, with its dwindling ammunition and credibility, as the sole stimulative force. And as recent experience has shown, allowing banks to borrow money more cheaply doesn't quickly filter into more hiring and more consumer spending.

Since January 2009, Republicans, time and again, have proven willing to vote against legislative items they once supported — on health care, on the environment, on weapons control — simply because they thought their passage would benefit Democrats politically. But there's one thing Republicans care about more than anything: lower taxes, especially for the wealthy. By caving to the Republicans on marginal income tax rates, Obama was able to extract the short-term, largely progressive stimulus he badly needs.

Republicans signed off on a payroll tax holiday, reducing the Social Security tax from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent for 2011. Because the tax is regressive — it falls on the first $100,000 or so of all payroll income — this is a progressive tax cut. It puts money into the hands of all workers instantly, and could provide $120 billion in stimulus in 2011. As Charles Babington of the Associated Press noted: "More than three-fourths of all Americans pay more in these so-called payroll taxes than in federal income taxes."

Republicans also agreed to the payment of extended unemployment benefits through the end of 2011. This represents an important source of cash for people at lower income levels. More important, it takes an item of perpetual disagreement off the table for 12 months. Every time Republicans stonewalled extension, it made the White House look impotent.

Businesses were also given a sweetener — next year they can write off 100 percent of new investments in capital goods, up from 50 percent this year. Taken together, these three items should spur additional spending, investment, and — it's hoped — jobs in 2011.

(Aside from corporations, the only people who will have to make substantial changes in tax preparation in 2011 are the handful of folks who expect to leave estates valued at more than $5 million. The proposed deal would ward off a sharp increase in the estate tax, and have only the portion of estates worth more than $5 million be taxed at a 35 percent rate.)

At root, the willingness to deal illustrates a point the punditocracy largely misses. To a large degree, electoral success is a function of macroeconomic success. The work of political scientists like John Sides and Seth Masket convincingly shows a marked connection between economic performance and the degree to which voters are willing to reward incumbents. Economist Ray Fair of Yale University has models that predict, with a good deal of accuracy, the outcomes of presidential and Congressional elections based on a model that includes data on GDP growth, inflation, and unemployment. Simply put, when economic growth has been above trend in the quarters leading up to an election, and inflation is low, the incumbent usually wins.

So what would seem to be a new step toward bipartisanship is in fact partisanship by other means. Obama is gambling that the risk he takes by angering his own base is worth the reward of potentially higher growth in 2011 and 2012. Macroeconomic Advisers, one of the forecasters I trust the most, now projects growth of 3.7 percent for 2011 and 4.0 percent for 2012. Should that come good, it would boost President Obama's re-election prospects much more than if he were to go on an Outward Bound expedition with Mitch McConnell and John Boehner.

The deal will present a new set of problems. Republicans will take credit for stopping tax hikes, but pin responsibility for the much larger deficits on Obama. They'll continue to filibuster everything in Washington, including the buffet in the Senate dining room. That's just how they roll.

What's more, the extensions are for two years, meaning they will come up again in the fall of 2012 and early 2013. Obama's making a wager that this deal makes it more likely he'll be president when the time comes to cut the next deal on tax rates.

[dellinger63]

Please stop this guy from trying to save us money. He backs down from raising taxes on the rich (even though he said we could not afford to do so) and now robs from social security, lowers payroll taxes and a whole slew of other add on's at a cost of $900 Billion More?

Please go back to India.

The package would cost about $900 billion over the next two years, to be financed entirely by adding to the national debt, at a time when both parties are professing a desire to begin addressing long-term fiscal imbalances.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/40545954

[dellinger63]

Maybe he simply needs to be told we need program cuts of 900 billion?

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Please stop this guy from trying to save us money. He backs down from raising taxes on the rich (even though he said we could not afford to do so) and now robs from social security, lowers payroll taxes and a whole slew of other add on's at a cost of $900 Billion More?

Please go back to India.

The package would cost about $900 billion over the next two years, to be financed entirely by adding to the national debt, at a time when both parties are professing a desire to begin addressing long-term fiscal imbalances.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/40545954

the vast majority of that 900b is from not allowing the 250k and up tax cut to expire, but you knew that.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Please stop this guy from trying to save us money. He backs down from raising taxes on the rich (even though he said we could not afford to do so) and now robs from social security, lowers payroll taxes and a whole slew of other add on's at a cost of $900 Billion More?

Please go back to India.

The package would cost about $900 billion over the next two years, to be financed entirely by adding to the national debt, at a time when both parties are professing a desire to begin addressing long-term fiscal imbalances.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/40545954

You simply can't raise or lower taxes when you are in a depression and carrying all this debt. Is it a desperate attempt to even have an iota of a chance of getting re-elcted?

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

the vast majority of that 900b is from not allowing the 250k and up tax cut to expire, but you knew that.

From Huffington via NY Times

"$60 Billion: The approximate amount that extending the Bush tax cuts on income above $250,000 a year -- which Congress seems on the verge of doing -- will cost a year, in inflation-adjusted terms."

So instead of swallowing the $60 billion per year or $120 for 2. He adds $780 billion to even things out?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1..._n_792140.html

[Antitrust32]

are you upset that the 6.2% the gov takes out of your paycheck for SS will be reduced 2% for a year?

I love that. I really am not interested in paying for your retirement when I will never see that money in return.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

From Huffington via NY Times

"$60 Billion: The approximate amount that extending the Bush tax cuts on income above $250,000 a year -- which Congress seems on the verge of doing -- will cost a year, in inflation-adjusted terms."

So instead of swallowing the $60 billion per year or $120 for 2. He adds $780 billion to even things out?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1..._n_792140.html

Counting money not collected is money lost is only available to the govt.

In simple terms, if you make 200k a year and now your taxes arent goig to be raised 3%, the govt says it lost 6 k on you even though they never had that money. Imagine if we could do that?

The problem with our govt isnt that it collects too little, the problem is it spends too much.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

are you upset that the 6.2% the gov takes out of your paycheck for SS will be reduced 2% for a year?

I love that. I really am not interested in paying for your retirement when I will never see that money in return.

An entitlement program for the working!!!

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

The point of the healthcare debate is that Obama started too far towards compromise. Just like he did before this, saying he's willing to extend tax cuts for the rich before negotiations even started.

Obama got a second massive stimulus bill out of this, which will certainly help the economy and jobs, but nothing here is paid for. Nothing. I think that is a huge mistake.

I hope the House progressives holds out for eliminating tax cuts for those over 1 million just to pay for half of it. Shoot, go for 2 million. That'll still pay for nearly half of it.

The small business community should be far more thrilled with what Obama did here for them, than what the GOP did for the minority of the richest (making sure millionaires and billionaires keep their extra $25,000 a year).
Here's a reasonable summation from YahooFinance (Greg somebody, their financial columnist)

LOL

oh ok. Now it was all Obama's idea?

[Antitrust32]

Since people are allowed to collect unemployment for just about ever it seems, there should be a rule added to unemployment.

If you are collecting unemployment (meaning you do not have a job), you must complete 80 hours of community service per month to continue to collect. That leaves you another 80 business hours per month to find a job.

The only way you are exempt from the community service is if you are going to school full time while collecting.

So, you are either going to benifit the community through your work, or you will benefit the community by furthering your education. win/win for all involved.

you should also have to prove that you are actively looking for work. Make photocopies of applications that you have to submit if when you are asking for your free check.

Have a minimum of 20 applications per month to continue to get unemployment. If you didnt apply for 20 job, reduce the check that they get. allow them to only collect $100 per week if you arent actively job searching.

I have a few friends who are just taking advantage of this unlimited umemployment and it is really disheartening. One girl is even making 500 per week stripping "under the table" on top of collecting her check.. from the company she was fired from (not even layed off) in May 2009. its ridiculous (I let her know that every time i see her also)

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

One girl is even making 500 per week stripping "under the table" on top of collecting her check.. from the company she was fired from (not even layed off) in May 2009. its ridiculous (I let her know that every time i see her also)

I thought most strippers stood on top of tables?

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I thought most strippers stood on top of tables?

true... and she looks very good doing it.. but i tell her to stop stealing my tax dollars!

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I thought most strippers stood on top of tables?

The real money is in the 'under the table' moves.

[Antitrust32]

so is this 13 month unemployment extension on TOP of the 99 weeks the unemployed already get?

can people really get 155 weeks of unemployment?

If that is the case... its sickening.

I know for a fact that a lot of umemployed refuse to find a job that will pay them similar to what they are getting in unemployment. they can get a job that pays $300 per week.. but dont take it cause they'd rather make $300 per week by doing nothing.

Lazy mofo's.. i wonder how many people are committing fraud against the system. If uncle sam finds out that you dont apply for jobs cause you make the same with unemployment.. you should be forced to pay back every cent you collected plus 15% interest... or go to a Siberian work camp.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Lazy mofo's.. i wonder how many people are committing fraud against the system. If uncle sam finds out that you dont apply for jobs cause you make the same with unemployment.. you should be forced to pay back every cent you collected plus 15% interest... or go to a Siberian work camp.

What difference does it make? The Democrats will find someone to give money to. As a matter of fact I hope Riot doesnt take your suggestion to her superiors at Daily Kos because next thing we know Pelosi will be creating another govt regulatory agency for a few hundred billion (unions backed naturally) that monitors the unemployed.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

they should make familys that are on welfare for more than 6 months with more than 3 kids get fixed.

[Cannon Shell]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/12/0...ss_igoogle_cnn