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

[Antitrust32]

you realistically could add Scott Brown's historic win in MA to the Senate toll, eventhough it was a jan 2010 special election.

that would be 38 seats up for grab in 2010... gain of 7 by repubs, 18.4% gain.

Repubs: 25
Dems: 13

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Allowing some taxes on the income of those couples greater than $250K - which will affect only 2% of the population, and they get a tax break for income less than $250K - to go back to the normal Clinton-era levels, and additionally will cut $700 billion out of our deficit over the next 10 years - yeah, solves alot!

No it wont. The idea that the economic impact of raising taxes operates in a vaccum is wrong.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...p_mostpop_read

This could have been resolved months ago, except that the White House and Congressional Democrats insist that some taxes must be raised. Mr. Obama wants the lower rates to expire on incomes of $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples. Dozens of Democrats revolted against that in the campaign, so the latest gambit, courtesy of New York Senator Chuck Schumer, would raise that threshold to $1 million.

Republicans shouldn't be suckered into raising taxes on anyone, especially not on small business job creators. The U.S. corporate tax rate of 39% (a combination of state average and federal rates) is already about 15 percentage points above the international average, and for the first time in a generation the personal rate of 41% would rise above the average of our overseas rivals. That's all before the 3.8% surtax on investment income arrives in 2013, courtesy of ObamaCare

Because most nations tax their companies at a business rate lower than the personal rate, the Tax Foundation says the Obama plan would mean that many Subchapter S corporations in the U.S. would pay "virtually the highest tax rates in the world on their business income." In other words, the after-tax rate of return on investment in the U.S. would fall relative to investing in Europe or Asia. This is an invitation to outsource more jobs. The U.S. should be cutting tax rates to become more competitive, as President Obama's deficit reduction commission and tax reform advisory panel have recommended.

About half the income taxed above $250,000 is business income, so small businesses get hammered from the Obama plan. Mr. Schumer argues that if the income threshold for higher taxes is raised to $1 million, Republicans will no longer be able to claim that this plan taxes small business income.

Not so. The Small Business Administration classifies a small business as an entity with fewer than 500 employees. The Schumer plan shifts the tax onto larger, more profitable firms from relatively smaller ones. But this still puts jobs at risk. A business with $1 million or $10 million of net income has many times more employees and does a lot more hiring than a business with, say, $60,000 of net income or one that is losing money.

The Tax Foundation estimates that of tax filers reporting income of more than $1 million a year, about 80% have business income and that more than 60% of millionaire income is either business or investment income. So about two of every three dollars raised would come directly out of business coffers—i.e., from the capital that businesses need to expand their operations

Tax payments by millionaire households more than doubled to $273 billion in 2007 from $132 billion after the tax rates were cut in 2003. The number of tax returns with $1 million or more in annual reported income doubled over that period thanks to the strong economic rebound. Tax payments by millionaires also increased dramatically after the Reagan and Kennedy tax rate reductions.

[Cannon Shell]

A counter argument to..well most of what Riot has posted lately...

except this one actually makes sense.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...317359202.html

[Nascar1966]

Originally Posted by Riot

And you don't realize that the people didn't vote out the Democrats? That after January 1, the Senate is still a Democratically-controlled majority, with Reid in charge? And Dem President who holds veto power?

The only thing the GOP won was a majority in the House.

I find it disturbing you think you are a rather typical Republican. And are unawares of the election results.

Im sure Obama will veto a Republican Bill that would good for this country. Yes I know the tool Reid kept his seat unfortunately. It doesnt hurt me you call me a typical Republican either.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

This forum has been heavy on the anti-Obama Muslim-Communist-Socialist-Birther hate for nearly three years. Once he was elected it was constant. Turn about's fair play.

oh, the two wrongs make a right line of thinking. gotcha. funny thing is, you probably think you're progressive in your thinking that reps are evil, dems are good. it's no different than someone who thinks the opposite. it's the same (faulty) logic.

the system is broken. it's not 'we the people' anymore. the parties rule, with the members of congress either toeing the party line, or getting replaced-note lieberman a few years back when the dems produced another candidate, and he had to run as an indy. as long as the two parties rule, with their vying to hold power, nothing will change in d.c. it doesn't matter who is the majority, or who is the minority. no one has the spine to do what's needed, as the party needs to keep them in their seats to retain the parties power. if you don't back your party's play, they'll find someone who will. the thought that all that's wrong right now is due only to republicans refusing to be bipartisan is laughable. the opposite occurs when the dems are in the minority because that's how the game is played. your contention that all the gridlock and problems are due only to stonewalling by one side is ridiculous. it's your agenda, it's what you think-but the dems aren't all truth and light and reps the evil monster, or vice versa. a bi partisan commission has produced some ideas. how much do you suppose happens or changes? i'd wager not much at all.

[joeydb]

When the question is "should we spend more money, when we already owe $14,000,000,000,000?", "NO!" is the only correct (and sane) answer.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

so there it is, in plain english, comprised of nothing but facts (except the bottom two paragraphs, which are my opinion)... the historic skull fucl<ing the Dems took on Nov 2, 2010.

Good stats :-) Do you have the total number of seats the parties controlled before and after the elections?

Percentage of wins/losses is important, yes, but it's relative to the starting point. Certainly this election alot of House seats changed over, a huge percentage, but many had Dems sitting in them, rather than the usual GOP, to start with. Those Dems were oddities that were only there because of the Obama effect of 2008, many of those seats are historically GOP seats, and reverted right back to them.

The most notable thing I see post-election is what is being discussed in the southern states - locally and at a state level, Dems are becoming an endangered species. And changing over to be "GOP" (parties switch) so they can be involved in policy making. This goes directly to gerrymandering district configurations.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

When the question is "should we spend more money, when we already owe $14,000,000,000,000?", "NO!" is the only correct (and sane) answer.

No. Not when our citizens are starving in the midst of recession. This is America. We feed them and house them and help them. We don't buy new weapons systems, but we feed our own and care for our own.

If the morals of the situation fail to impress, consider that especially when in the midst of a slow jobless recession recovery, that money goes directly to keeping the economy going. In their pockets and directly out into the economy. Each dollar of unemployment results in $1-$2 of economic stimulus.

If we take that infusion of money out of the economy now, we will fall back in a big way, and then our costs (Medicare, health, food stamps, etc) will skyrocket.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

oh, the two wrongs make a right line of thinking. gotcha.

If you don't like reading my posts because you think they are one-sided, don't read them. Nascar and Dell make posts that tend to have one view, too, you can read those or not, too. You can make the moral judgment that what others write here is "wrong" but that doesn't mean anybody else has to agree.

I completely agree with you that the system is broken. But you say, "your contention that all the gridlock and problems are due only to stonewalling by one side is ridiculous."

I'm sorry, but looking at the Senate over the past 2-3 years, that factually simply is not true. Most Congresses average 45-50 filibusters in the Senate per session. The GOP in the past two-three years have already hit over twice as many, over one hundred plus, and are still increasing.

The GOP has been completely and legendarily obstructionist with misuse of the filibuster this session. They have had an automatic hold on every single item! That means bills are not even getting to the floor to be discussed and there isn't even debate. That's unprecedented!

The filibuster doesn't require Senators to hold the floor talking. If the majority brings a bill to the floor for discussion, the minority GOP has immediately filibustered it - it is a procedural move - then the minority go back to their offices. It is then left to the majority to come up with enough votes 60 to invoke cloture to simply get the bill introduced to the floor so it can be discussed. That usually takes at least a week.

It's not votes the GOP are filibustering in record levels - it's the bringing of routine bills (funding bills, etc) to the floor. The GOP has blocked the routine introduction of bills in the first place! There can't even be debate, let alone votes.

The GOP isn't blocking votes - they have been unprecedented, in blocking every item - a blanket hold - from even being brought up for discussion and debate.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

you realistically could add Scott Brown's historic win in MA to the Senate toll, eventhough it was a jan 2010 special election.

that would be 38 seats up for grab in 2010... gain of 7 by repubs, 18.4% gain.

Repubs: 25
Dems: 13

No you can't When you are measuring facts, you don't add "what ifs" to your totals

You didn't leave your source - what are the total seats that each party controlled in each house before and after each election?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

Im sure Obama will veto a Republican Bill that would good for this country. Yes I know the tool Reid kept his seat unfortunately. It doesnt hurt me you call me a typical Republican either.

I wouldn't call you that. I think you are in the far right wing of the GOP, a little right of Sarah Palin and way to the right of Pat Buchannan. But what I say doesn't matter You characterize yourself.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

No it wont. The idea that the economic impact of raising taxes operates in a vaccum is wrong.

Yes, it will. That article is nice, but assumes much not in evidence.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

After the 2008 election, the power of the Democrats was overstated. After the 2010 election, the loss of power is overstated. With the filibuster crap, it makes it easy to narrow one of the 3 sections of pipe. Nothing can become law without all 3 sections of the pipe flowing.

Exactly. Oooooh, I like your Min Pin avatar!

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

No you can't When you are measuring facts, you don't add "what ifs" to your totals

You didn't leave your source - what are the total seats that each party controlled in each house before and after each election?

my source is wikipedia.

you could be right about the Scott Brown one.. i dont know if Teddy's seat would have been up for re-election this november or not.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

my source is wikipedia.

you could be right about the Scott Brown one.. i dont know if Teddy's seat would have been up for re-election this november or not.

Scott Brown was a special, but I think he must be counted, as his election was simply early to 2010.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

Each dollar of unemployment results in $1-$2 of economic stimulus.

LOL....you believe that????

Ahem -- if it was REALLY stimulus, the unemployment rate would DROP.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

No. Not when our citizens are starving in the midst of recession. This is America. We feed them and house them and help them. We don't buy new weapons systems, but we feed our own and care for our own.

If the morals of the situation fail to impress, consider that especially when in the midst of a slow jobless recession recovery, that money goes directly to keeping the economy going. In their pockets and directly out into the economy. Each dollar of unemployment results in $1-$2 of economic stimulus. If we take that infusion of money out of the economy now, we will fall back in a big way, and then our costs (Medicare, health, food stamps, etc) will skyrocket.

Why not fire EVERY government employee and give them a million per month in unemployment. Even if we get $1.50 back per $1 spent 500K times 1.5 million we get 750 billion back in return. Do that a year and we're at 9 Trillion plus what we've saved in payroll. Somehow there's a trick or CON to this. LOL

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

LOL....you believe that????

Ahem -- if it was REALLY stimulus, the unemployment rate would DROP.

It's not a matter of "belief", it's the truth. The only disagreement among economist is the amount of benefit you get per doller. Those funds DO keep the unemployment level lower. Unemployment money is immediately plowed right back into the economy - food, rent, gas, etc. That keeps those folks providing those services employed, keeps demand high there.

This isn't new or imaginary. There's plenty of economic history to show it's absolutely true.

If we were to kick out everyone off unemployment - millions of people - yes, the jobless rate will raise, and the economy will crash.

What doesn't work is, for example, continuing the tax cut for the top 2% of earners assuming they will spend it. They don't. They have enough money to purchase what they want in spite of the economy. That money tends to get saved. During the 10 years since that policy was first was initiated, we lost 800,000 jobs. Trickle down doesn't work. See Reagan, too.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

What doesn't work is, for example, continuing the tax cut for the top 2% of earners assuming they will spend it. They don't. They have enough money to purchase what they want in spite of the economy. .

None of these 'rich' people you speak of hides their money under the matress. They invest in new business ventures, speculate and start businesses. The rest usually goes into stocks, REIT's (yea real estate) and T-bills and bonds mostly to save in tax liabilities.

Just because Pelosi speaks doesn't make it so.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Yes because raising taxes on rich people solves everything...

It doesn't solve everything. The facts are that the rich have gotten richer, and the Middle Class has gotten poorer. The divide between the two is increasing. If it was the other way around, then, you'd be making a lot more sense.