Are Republicans Holding Tax Cuts Hostage?

[araine]

IMO

Lets get EVERYBODY paying taxes before we start trying to figure out who should pay more.

Sure start by raising wages on the poor and middle class so they actually can get income high enough to pay taxes on. they dont pay federal income taxes due to earned income taxcredits, child deductions etc etc. But you can be 100% sure they pay more in social security taxes than romney did, as a percentage of there income. So this NONSENSE that folks at the bottom isnt paying taxes and we already tax the rich too much.

They think they pay to much when facts is they dont pay enough for the share of the pie they are grabbing. Rightwingers constantly likes to say but i paid 20 million in taxes and they think that just a higher dollar amount means they paid more. Really 20 million for someone making 25k a year is a fortune and something you will never see. But 20million for folks making a billion is a drop in the bucket and is a rounding error on his bank accounts.

when the top 10% share of the wealth is over 75% and the taxes they pay is less than this number we have a regressive tax system that means you pay less in taxes the more you make. It needs to match this wealth holding number just to mean we have a flat taxation and ideal it needs to be ABOVE this number by a fair amount to make sure we have progressive tax scales in place.

[Spectral]

I say something substantial with almost every sentence.

This is easily the funniest line I've seen in any post today.

[Riidii]

He's right if you imagine that Obama never inherited policies that were detrimental to the deficit.

Lowest in new federal spending in decades, emphasis on new. Of course a couple of wars and a tax cut that they knew in 2000 would crucify the deficit have to be ignored, which is pretty damn impossible to do.

Yes, the new part is true.

But continuing ridiculously ludicrous spending is the polar opposite of fiscal conservatism.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

The slippery slope is strong in this one.

Do I need to put it in my signature and post a bunch of times so you'll see it, Kelliak?

Disagreeing with your solutions does not mean people agree with the current solution.

Yet all I hear is defense of the "current solution". Are we really that afraid to take on any alternative?

[Seranthor]

2.. Obama has defined that people making over 250(Two Hundred Fifty Thousand) should be taxed. Not higher then ever before but before the Bush Years. You do remember Bush the person who single handled brought down the entire economic into a great depression. Sure you do. He was the man that didn't even attend the RNC or Campaign with Romeny.

I really have to take issue with this... Blame Bush is old and beyond dishonest. Bush doesn't, didn't and never did set monetary policy. That Miss, is the Federal Reserve, you should check into it... the Fed Chair built the bubbles, and all bubbles burst. Period.

If you want to continue to blame Bush, then you your fearless leader has to own up to all the stuff he's passed and that has failed. Can you say stimulus for 'shovel ready jobs' that weren't shovel ready? Dishonest as hell.

While you are at it, the auto bailout was done on Bush's watch, but your fearless leader continues to claim credit for it ad nauseum, again, beyond dishonest.

Taking credit for someone else's successes, and then passing your failures off on someone else... Marks of Great Men, dont you think?

[araine]

Don't forget Clinton actually didn't run a deficit his last two years. All the GOP, as it is now, has left is fearmongering. 'Bamas comin for your guns! 'Bamas comin for your liberty! 'Bamas comin for your FREEDOM!

I'm honestly surprised fox news hasn't run a clip from blazing saddles where they are getting the KKK guys to come into the bushes to beat them up and the sheriff says 'where the white women at' with Obamas face photoshopped over Cleavon Little's face. Yes I had to IMDB for his name.

Anyway, I enjoy the 'get everyone paying taxes' and 'get back to full employment' (I assume you mean between 5 and 6% unemployment, and not actual 100% employment, but still) without stating any plans, suggestions, solutions, bills, recommendations, or pipe dreams that would be a way to do it. And no, Riidii, your earlier 'legalize weed' (although something I support) wouldn't employ 5% of the population, although I believe it would help revenue if we taxed it.

You are never going to get unemployment below 4% the cost for it is just too high in terms of inflation. The rich did perfectly fine during the 50s and the 60s when tax rates on the top income earned was well above todays numbers.

But we all know GOP's plan is the Romney plan nothing can be more clear based on what Boehner have been saying today and yesterday. It is like they dont know Romney lost and lost in a landslide. But typical GOP politics to hold 98% of people hostage so the filthy rich can get more $$$$ in the cayman account.

[Seranthor]

The Bill to extend to the Bush Era Tax Cuts only for 98 percent of people narrowly passed the senate before the election. It's been gathering dust.. The bill was voted on. It needs to pass the Republican controlled House and then signed. It's stopped there. That's why they are saying they are holding a hostage. Because Republicans refuse to vote on it and we're in this situation.

Actually, you should check Senator Harry Reid's office for all the Bills he's flat refused to vote on as well. There miss, is your hostage taker

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

This is easily the funniest line I've seen in any post today.

Is what it is. I speak my mind and point out what I feel are gaping fractures in your stances. If you don't like that, just say so. Acting like I'm not bringing anything worth a conversation to the table is, actually, laughable in of itself. I'd rather you explain your own ideas, what you think should be done. All I've seen is a counter assault on me with literally zero substance added to make a case on your own behalf.

So, what will it be? Do you have a suggestion besides the current, self-destructive course or can I write you off as another content little slave ready to scurry to his master's desire?

[obdigore]

Yes, the new part is true.

But continuing ridiculously ludicrous spending is the polar opposite of fiscal conservatism.

Ironically, he said the Obama was the most fiscally conservative president in 20 years. I would suggest Clinton might have been more, but for the Presidencies I'm old enough to have lived through and some others I've taken a look at in recent history courses, I wouldn't say his statement can be considered 'spit out the coffee' wrong. GOP is no longer fiscally conservative, and hasn't been since before Reagan.

[Spectral]

However, if we could deduct fear and force ourselves into a state of reason, we could act with greater clarity and conscience.

Here's a good example of soaring rhetoric that's spectacularly vacuous. Saying this with the conviction that it must result in your preferred policy solution is quite literally a delusion. You imagine that other people aren't advocating positions that are based on reason, and advocating them with clarity; this has no basis in reality.

[obdigore]

You are never going to get unemployment below 4% the cost for it is just too high in terms of inflation. The rich did perfectly fine during the 50s and the 60s when tax rates on the top income earned was well above todays numbers.

But we all know GOP's plan is the Romney plan nothing can be more clear based on what Boehner have been saying today and yesterday. It is like they dont know Romney lost and lost in a landslide. But typical GOP politics to hold 98% of people hostage so the filthy rich can get more $$$$ in the cayman account.

Win more EC Votes and more of the popular vote than Bush in his second term = No Mandate to Govern! But somehow Bush did have a mandate to govern? The intellectual dishonesty is one of the worst things about politics.

[Seranthor]

If Republicans wanted a serious debate, they would agree to getting rid of the tax cuts on the rich and fight over the other details. These cuts were the core of the campaign battle. To ignore that is to ignore the will of the people. Beyond that there is plenty to debate and wrangle over. But if you won't accept the centerpiece of what the election was about then yes, your party deserves the blame for gridlock.

And here in exists the problem, the Democrats just want the tax hikes on the rich and dont give a flying tinker's fucking damn about cutting spending...

[Spectral]

Is what it is. I speak my mind and point out what I feel are gaping fractures in your stances.

No, you don't. You speak in a stream of consciousness that's obfuscatory and doesn't absolutely nothing to promote coherent policy solutions to real world problems.

If you don't like that, just say so.

I think I have said so. In case I haven't been clear, I think your posts are long-winded nonsense in which you mistake verbosity for depth of substance. Some ideas require a great deal of language to communicate, none of yours really seem to; the wordiness is just a substitute for actual substance.

Acting like I'm not bringing anything worth a conversation to the table is, actually, laughable in of itself.

I didn't say you're bringing nothing. I said your post was the funniest thing I've seen today.

So, what will it be? Do you have a suggestion besides the current, self-destructive course or can I write you off as another content little slave ready to scurry to his master's desire?

This shit literally makes me laugh. Seriously, you should try to see how you look to others.

Rectifying our deficits isn't even a particularly difficult problem, it's just politically difficult because of the parties involved. Anyone that's not completely fucking braindead can see quite a few reasonable options forward. My version would be substantial military cuts, moderate tax hikes on high incomes and estate tax, and mitigation of high health care costs through a combination of market solutions and reduced government spending. That more or less covers everything that's presently necessary. Of course, the deficit's far from the most serious policy problem on the table.

[Seezer]

I really have to take issue with this... Blame Bush is old and beyond dishonest. Bush doesn't, didn't and never did set monetary policy. That Miss, is the Federal Reserve, you should check into it... the Fed Chair built the bubbles, and all bubbles burst. Period.

If you want to continue to blame Bush, then you your fearless leader has to own up to all the stuff he's passed and that has failed. Can you say stimulus for 'shovel ready jobs' that weren't shovel ready? Dishonest as hell.

While you are at it, the auto bailout was done on Bush's watch, but your fearless leader continues to claim credit for it ad nauseum, again, beyond dishonest.

Taking credit for someone else's successes, and then passing your failures off on someone else... Marks of Great Men, dont you think?

Let's see...

1. He cut taxes.

2. He spent $2 trillion on two wars. (See 2)

3. We doubled discretionary spending. Some conservatives originally aimed to "starve the beast" by cutting taxes in order to force future cuts in spending. But spending grew so out of control in Bush's term that no beast was starved, Roubini said. In fact, the beast was fed.

4. We added entitlement benefits like the Medicare drug benefit.

5. We entered the largest economic and financial crisis ever, which caused a huge increase in the deficit through the "recession deficit" and the cost of bailing out the banks and financial institutions.

Putting all of the blame on Obama is dishonest. And getting old. Not accepting failures of your party is the mark of a weak person.

[Spectral]

Careful now Spectral. Kelliak let me off the hook for not agreeing with him earlier. He may have to put you to the sword. Especially when you deny your slavery and question his authority.

I mean, he can't let us simple-minded fools get in the way of his vision of a fear-free, war-free society. Even if it means he threatens us(to make us fearful), or goes to war against us.

Honestly, I've never met anyone that pulls the "you're a total slave!" routine that wasn't fairly unsuccessful in their own life. Granted, it's purely anecdotal and I'm not making any assumptions about Kelliak, but many of the people that use the same rhetoric seem pretty angry that other people feel that they're enjoying success in the context of our current society. There seems, to me, something defensive about being able to say, "yeah, you feel good about yourself, but you're really just a slave to the machine".

Well, very well. I'll enjoy my slavery, I suppose. The only things that bug me about that phrasing, as I think I've mentioned here before, is that calling just about everything "slavery" is actively racist, in my opinion, as it demeans actual slavery.

[obdigore]

Honestly, I've never met anyone that pulls the "you're a total slave!" routine that wasn't fairly unsuccessful in their own life. Granted, it's purely anecdotal and I'm not making any assumptions about Kelliak, but many of the people that use the same rhetoric seem pretty angry that other people feel that they're enjoying success in the context of our current society. There seems, to me, something defensive about being able to say, "yeah, you feel good about yourself, but you're really just a slave to the machine".

Well, very well. I'll enjoy my slavery, I suppose. The only things that bug me about that phrasing, as I think I've mentioned here before, is that calling just about everything "slavery" is actively racist, in my opinion, as it demeans actual slavery.

Ever read 'Small Gods' by Pratchett? The 'slaves' have good working hours, good pay, time off, meat once a day and all that, and the guys there to 'free' them are worked to the bone 18 hours a day every day all day in the name of FREEDOM! Tao of Pratchett is a good way to live a life, imo.

[Spectral]

Ever read 'Small Gods' by Pratchett? The 'slaves' have good working hours, good pay, time off, meat once a day and all that, and the guys there to 'free' them are worked to the bone 18 hours a day every day all day in the name of FREEDOM! Tao of Pratchett is a good way to live a life, imo.

I've not, but I'll add it to my reading list, since I've heard great things about Pratchett (how the fuck have I never read him?) and that sounds fantastic!

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

Is this some kind of veiled threat? Oh thank you Kelliak for choosing to spare me this time!

Not at all a threat. I don't know what the future holds at this time or where you will stand. It's quite out of my hands. However, I think any of us that truly believe in a cause and our rights, should acknowledge the possibility of coming to violence as a last resort. It's why I am very aggressive in my words and don't tend to hold back, there is no sense in it. Being passive and quiet does not change the world or viewpoints, never has and never will. You've got to fight and keeping fight until it's all over.

Just the way things are. If you indeed thought I was threatening you, I apologize. I told you already, I wish no one physical harm nor for the idea that I desire such to perpetuate itself.

Do you even know what my viewpoint is, besides it differing from yours? Honest question.

From what I gather, rather stereotypical--not to be an ass but you really don't separate yourself from the usual crap. If you'd like to do so, feel free.

Then you don't know what socialism is.

You're thinking in absolutes. Nothing is absolute. Socialist policies are just that, socialistic in flavor. You can argue all day whether or not we're a socialist country but I say just look at our policies and how they're evolving. Even conservatives have adopted much more socialist-endearing ideologies over time, even some fascistic in a way. The fact that our government is constantly looking to consume more wealth, just to spread it among "voting blocks" in order to lock in votes is pretty socialist by my count.

Hell, that's all social security and medicare is and ever was. A means to get the vote of the rapidly growing "old vote" block. Welfare is another form of that. Hence why none of these programs are sensible and better serving. They're just outright simplistic and self-destructive in design. Anyone that truly cared about the future of these programs would have developed them in a much more promising manner than what we have now.

That's before we even get into the subject of it being socialistic to be forced into essentially buying a product for the well-being of others. Yeesh.

When I get up in the morning, I thank the stars that the government didn't come take all my shit today, and allowed me the ability to get myself educated, achieve highly valuable work skills, and make my American dream happen. What an oppressive life I lead.

Allowed you? Allowed you!? As if you're some common dog without a will and rights of your own!? What a depressing mindset you have.

Holy shit, I agree with you on something. Fear is an unfortunate part of our society, always has been. However, I would *love* to hear how you're able to remove that fear, considering it's one of our primal instincts.

By stop being afraid of everything. The fear of failure. Of attack. Of poor people asking you for 'effing change whilst strolling about downtown. People are unwilling to accept their fate and responsibilities. They're terrified of actually living and quickly, more rapidly over the years, give up their freedoms so that their fears can be abated. It's really as simple as that. How else do you control any other emotion? By training yourself to restrict it and keep it from being such a controlling factor in your life.

Primitive? It's built into us. We're hunter-gatherers that cherish the shit we have. We're instinctive protectors. Without fear we don't know what's valuable to us. Until you have some solution to the fear problem, then no, I can't take the idea seriously. It's as grand an idea as world peace. Wonderful, but useless.

Killing is built into us. Why do we not do it? Because ultimately, regardless of primal urges, it benefits us a great deal more to avoid the practice. There is a mutual benefit from this understanding and restriction of primal instinct. Same can be done with fear and giving it less influence in our policy making. You should never allow a raw emotion like that to completely overtake your senses and deliver you into indebted servitude--which is what is ultimately going to happen. It's not going to end with rich paying more of their "fair share" because it won't make a dent.

Think of all this as a snowball effect. End result won't be pretty unless you withdraw your fears and decide that your life is your own responsibility and concern. That you can't spend your existence fighting the inevitable.

Our world is filled with compromise. If you're not married, get married. Then you'll see. Hell, go to work, you'll see compromise there too. The key to compromise is finding common ground that both parties can both live with. It's not compromise itself. Society doesn't magically "see the light". It gradually lurches toward an eventual end.

I work with others every day to create parts for the nuclear industry. It doesn't mean I ship shoddy product that could kill millions because I want to compromise with someone afraid to assume responsibility and get the work done RIGHT.

[Abysal]

Let's see...

1. He cut taxes.

2. He spent $2 trillion on two wars. (See 2)

3. We doubled discretionary spending. Some conservatives originally aimed to "starve the beast" by cutting taxes in order to force future cuts in spending. But spending grew so out of control in Bush's term that no beast was starved, Roubini said. In fact, the beast was fed.

4. We added entitlement benefits like the Medicare drug benefit.

5. We entered the largest economic and financial crisis ever, which caused a huge increase in the deficit through the "recession deficit" and the cost of bailing out the banks and financial institutions.

Putting all of the blame on Obama is dishonest. And getting old. Not accepting failures of your party is the mark of a weak person.

He said Bush didn't set monetary policy. So let's see:

1. Taxes are Fiscal Policy

2. Also Fiscal Policy

3. Again, Fiscal Policy

4. Fiscal.

5. And that was his point. He's blaming the Federal Reserve's reckless expansion of the supply of credit for the housing bubble. This is monetary policy. I.E. what you do with the supply and value of money. You clearly missed his point judging by your reply.

[Spectral]

Is it as bad as my broke-ass cousin who works at Domino's pizza and has a GED telling me how much Obama's done to ruin my American dream?

I wish I had a mirror every time he says that. I'm not trying to dis my cousin, but damn, look at what I did with my freedom, and look at what you did with yours. And you have the nerve to blame someone else? WTF.

Introspection is a lot harder than blaming the black guy.