Extending Tax Cuts, Why Can't the Politicians Compromise?

Jadow

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2003
5,962
2
0
I watched Boner and Pence on TV this morning, pretty strongly indicate that they wanted to extend ALL of the tax cuts.

The dems want to extend everything except the top bracket of 35% (which will go back to 39.6%")

Why can't they just get together, split the difference at say 37% for the top bracket, extend all the rest, and call it a day?
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
we need to tax the wealthy more so they have a desire to move the money around. I think most of america realizes how bad the last decade was for the middle class and this stunt will backfire for the republicans.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
we need to tax the wealthy more so they have a desire to move the money around. I think most of america realizes how bad the last decade was for the middle class and this stunt will backfire for the republicans.

LOL! So that they desire to move the money around? What does that mean?

Do you mean take away their money involuntarily so that they will give away all of whatever money they have left voluntarily?

Progressives. Lost in translation.
 
Last edited:

EndGame

Golden Member
Dec 28, 2002
1,276
0
0
Because most of them are similar to quite a few here on AT.......stay with the party opinion regardless what is best for the people or nation...........
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Because most of them are similar to quite a few here on AT.......stay with the party opinion regardless what is best for the people or nation...........

What is best for the nation is not raising taxes in the middle of a severe recession. That's the worst thing you could do and a whole lot of democrats agree and the numbers are growing.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
What is best for the nation is not raising taxes in the middle of a severe recession. That's the worst thing you could do and a whole lot of democrats agree and the numbers are growing.

Hogwash. America's wealthiest aren't taking any risks, making any investments they don't have to make atm. They have enormous excess in their incomes, and they're stashing it under their mattresses or buying govt bonds. The only way to bring it back into circulation in the economy is via taxation.

Repubs are holding the middle class Bush taxcuts hostage to the taxcuts for the true Bush Constituency, and anybody with enough sense to pour piss out of a boot realizes that.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,352
11
0
Why aren't more Democrats pointing out that the first $250,000 earned by EVERYONE is getting a tax cut, not just for those making $250,000 and under?
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Hogwash. America's wealthiest aren't taking any risks, making any investments they don't have to make atm. They have enormous excess in their incomes, and they're stashing it under their mattresses or buying govt bonds. The only way to bring it back into circulation in the economy is via taxation.

Repubs are holding the middle class Bush taxcuts hostage to the taxcuts for the true Bush Constituency, and anybody with enough sense to pour piss out of a boot realizes that.

The obama proposed tax hikes affect me and I can guarantee you it will impact our spending. The change in dividends alone will significantly change how I invest as well as capital gains.

When the government takes that money it's money not being used in our economy. It's just a terribly stupid idea to massively increase taxes the way Obama wants to.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
LOL! So that they desire to move the money around? What does that mean?

Do you mean take away their money involuntarily so that they will give away all of whatever money they have left voluntarily?

Progressives. Lost in translation.

Bitch, please. Do you even realize how short-term your thinking is? Wealth accumulation at the top has locked out the rest of the population from achieving any meaningful wealth accumulation. Eventually this top-heavy plutocracy will lead to an inevitable overthrow of the quasi-aristocracy. Do you think the poor will be content being virtual serfs to the investor class while the likes of Paris Hilton do nothing but live off the largess of her predecessors?

Furthermore, the trickle-down economics of the last 30 years have led to nothing but massive waste, debt, and a going nowhere economy.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
The obama proposed tax hikes affect me and I can guarantee you it will impact our spending. The change in dividends alone will significantly change how I invest as well as capital gains.

When the government takes that money it's money not being used in our economy. It's just a terribly stupid idea to massively increase taxes the way Obama wants to.

It will affect me also, but I'm not going to sit around and be morose about a couple lost grand. In fact, it does nothing for my plans of asset allocation, investment, or spending. Anybody at the 250K level, especially those who live outside CA or NYC, who claims otherwise is a fucking liar.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,352
11
0
The obama proposed tax hikes affect me and I can guarantee you it will impact our spending. The change in dividends alone will significantly change how I invest as well as capital gains.
Keep trotting out that lie. You can thank the Republicans circa 2001/2003 for that.
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,554
2
76
Hogwash. America's wealthiest aren't taking any risks, making any investments they don't have to make atm. They have enormous excess in their incomes, and they're stashing it under their mattresses or buying govt bonds. The only way to bring it back into circulation in the economy is via taxation.

Repubs are holding the middle class Bush taxcuts hostage to the taxcuts for the true Bush Constituency, and anybody with enough sense to pour piss out of a boot realizes that.

lol, they're sitting on it because we have politicians who don't know what they're doing making decisions that are fubar'ing the economy. Banks are apolitical, if they can't trust the administration to lead then they can't make loans. That's why they've got $2T sitting around in reserves. Obama's policies are not conducive to growing the economy.

Obama is so bad, Hillary Clinton is going to oppose him and she's going to win.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
lol, they're sitting on it because we have politicians who don't know what they're doing making decisions that are fubar'ing the economy. Banks are apolitical, if they can't trust the administration to lead then they can't make loans. That's why they've got $2T sitting around in reserves. Obama's policies are not conducive to growing the economy.

Obama is so bad, Hillary Clinton is going to oppose him and she's going to win.

It's got nothing to do with banks not making loans, it's got everything to do with nobody wanting them. That's demand driven and it has nothing to do with businesses and the political climate and has everything to do with deleveraging.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
349
126
Bitch, please. Do you even realize how short-term your thinking is? Wealth accumulation at the top has locked out the rest of the population from achieving any meaningful wealth accumulation. Eventually this top-heavy plutocracy will lead to an inevitable overthrow of the quasi-aristocracy. Do you think the poor will be content being virtual serfs to the investor class while the likes of Paris Hilton do nothing but live off the largess of her predecessors?

Furthermore, the trickle-down economics of the last 30 years have led to nothing but massive waste, debt, and a going nowhere economy.

I agree with most of what LK has posted in this thread; however, I disagree that this will lead to any sort of 'revolution' that fixes much of anything.

We're on the road to a long-term (read: as far as the eye can see) return to the human race's norm of extreme concentration of wealth to which the Western strong middle class was an interesting exception, and which we took for granted, but which is all too vulnerable to ending to the forces of concentrated wealth.

When was the Soviet Union going to fall without outside pressures? When will China's community government fall without outside pressures?

One side in the class war - the only side fighting it, the top - is well prepared for coming 'backlash' against the resentment. The tea party is one small taste of how 'backlash' can be pointed right back against the public interest. The side who has the money, the media, the propaganda infrastructure and more has little to worry about.

Today I glanced at a reminder of the history of South Africa - how they used the demons of the 'communist threat' to justify their extreme authoritarian claims to power.

It had nothing to do with communists, and everything to do with how well blaming communists let them keep the public under control. It worked for decades (finally undermined by outside pressures, such as the US sanctions the Democrats passed over President Reagan's veto).

They 'blame the Democrats', blame socialism, even still throw the Communist word around regularly, to keep the people's resentment away from the real culprits.

And that's just one of all kinds of things that prevent any 'revolution'.

And the massive draining of wealth from the middle class weakens the middle class's ability to do anything about this.

The consolidation of the media from hundreds and thousands of more diverse owners to IIRC 90% owned by five main mega corporations, the development of right-wing propaganda organizations whose messages dominate the 'discussion' fed to the American people and have shifted opinion away from the public interest, the increase in lobbyists from under a thousand when Reagan took office to over 35,000, and more are some of the problems shown by the changes.

There is no 'outside' to fix the US, other than repressive regimes like China.

People need to embrace the only major political group for the public interest, the progressives, but instead the pendulum didn't even go to the middle from the last Republican disaster since 2001 and is already headed to the right again, back to more disaster.

When did all this get a lot worse? The last time the country rejected far better policies under Carter for the disaster of Ronald Reagan.

Before that, the real end of the 'liberal decades' that strengthened our nation, when they picked Nixon over Humphrey.

Do you think the poor will be content being virtual serfs to the investor class while the likes of Paris Hilton do nothing but live off the largess of her predecessors?

The larger problem is, it won't matter how content they are about it. LK isn't so manipulated by the propaganda, but he might forget how much most are.

He should look at the rise of Sarah Palin and her ilk, and realize how much it contradicts how he thinks America should work, and how difficult fixes are.

The election of a business-ruining ignoramus corporate whore of nepotism named George W. Bush over Clinton's chosen successor who was the key congressional leader in America's greatest advancement of the previous decade, the internet, wasn't enough about how bad the problem with the American people's politics is?

We need money reduced in our system, to defend democracy. That is its biggest threat, and oaths against 'enemies domestic' ring hollow without that war.

On the revolution LK mentions - the right began winning the revolution with organizing - mailing lists, channeling money from right-wing tycoons, organizing media control and content ('the media is liberal' being one of their many attacks to make it more right-wing) and so on, and it's worked well at causing harm. People need to organize more for the public interest in opposition - to change course from our downward trend. Read 'liberal media' (see my sig), donate to good causes, talk to your 'non-political' family members to not vote for the 'guy they want a beer with' as presented by the well-financed advertisers.

Save234
 
Last edited:

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,128
5,657
126
Cancel the Cuts, but offer some Tax Breaks for a portion that are focused on Job Creating Investments.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
Hogwash. America's wealthiest aren't taking any risks, making any investments they don't have to make atm. They have enormous excess in their incomes, and they're stashing it under their mattresses or buying govt bonds. The only way to bring it back into circulation in the economy is via taxation.

Repubs are holding the middle class Bush taxcuts hostage to the taxcuts for the true Bush Constituency, and anybody with enough sense to pour piss out of a boot realizes that.

So you want to take money away from people who worked for it and give it to high school drop-outs?
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
So you want to take money away from people who worked for it and give it to high school drop-outs?

Please, they are still keeping 60%+ of the additional dollars. That's more than enough to give them incentive to invest both time and money into the economy.

Don't forget, the only reason why they CAN earn the money is because this country gave them the opportunity and the people working for them do so for the betterment of them.

Wealth aggregation cannot continue and keep this country free for all classes, it is simply impossible.

Why do you and your ilk refuse to acknowledge this basic fact and realize that something must be done, else this entire thought of self-rule for all classes will be reduced to nothing?

It's because you guys are fucking moronic short-term thinkers, that's why!

Not to mention you're some kid who lives with his parents and you think in terms of idealism, not practicality.
 

sao123

Lifer
May 27, 2002
12,648
201
106
So you want to take money away from people who worked for it and give it to high school drop-outs?

puh-lease. Investors and executives dont "work" for anything. They shuffle around money claim it as profit and reap huge sums of money.
the only people who do real work, are the actual workers at the base of the company.
The wealthy are taking the money away from the people who really work for it.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
349
126
puh-lease. Investors and executives dont "work" for anything. They shuffle around money claim it as profit and reap huge sums of money.
the only people who do real work, are the actual workers at the base of the company.
The wealthy are taking the money away from the people who really work for it.

You overstate the case. It's true that someone with a billion dollars can just hire someone to manage his investments and go to the beach and make more money, and that the 'investor class' and the wealthy do extract wealth from the rest of society, sometimes to an extreme, but executives do add value and 'earn' more than most, not just get paid more than most, and even the 'investor class' adds value sometimes, when they aren't doing things that really do just rig the system to extract more wealth.

I find it funny how often people accept 'well, they did well at guessing right on investing' as a definition of 'earning' vast sums turning our finance system into a parasitic game.

There's the 'legitimate' role of finance that contributes to society, and there's the exploitive role which has exploded finance from 10% to 40% of the nation's economy.

But because they wear suits, people say 'oh they must earn it all', when they might really be harming society.
 

Slew Foot

Lifer
Sep 22, 2005
12,381
96
86
The dude making 250K/yr isnt sitting on cash making money off investments. They're most likely lawyers, business owners, doctors, etc working their butt off to make money. Once you get into the 500k-1m/yr territory then you get into the investment banker assholes who are screwing the country. Feel free to tax them, not the guys working for a buck.
 

brencat

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2007
2,170
3
76
When did all this get a lot worse? The last time the country rejected far better policies under Carter for the disaster of Ronald Reagan.

over Clinton's chosen successor who was the key congressional leader in America's greatest advancement of the previous decade, the internet,

You are completely mad! Carter was by far the WORST president this country has ever had and a total failure as well. Obama is not far behind him and there is still 2 years to go. I was a young kid and I remember how impotent he was in dealing with the hostage crisis in Iran, how angry and embarrassed my parents were for our country that we had him in the Oval Office.

After Reagan was elected, I remember mostly how good everyone felt, and how proud they were to be American again. Therein lies the big difference.

Al Gore invented the internet...omg you've got to be kidding me...
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
You are completely mad! Carter was by far the WORST president this country has ever had and a total failure as well. Obama is not far behind him and there is still 2 years to go. I was a young kid and I remember how impotent he was in dealing with the hostage crisis in Iran, how angry and embarrassed my parents were for our country that we had him in the Oval Office.

After Reagan was elected, I remember mostly how good everyone felt, and how proud they were to be American again. Therein lies the big difference.

Al Gore invented the internet...omg you've got to be kidding me...

Really? How was Carter that poor of a President?

Please enlighten us.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
Don't forget, the only reason why they CAN earn the money is because this country gave them the opportunity and the people working for them do so for the betterment of them.

I've said this before and fully agree with it. How rich would those "hard working" people be if they were born in somolia? Hmmm? If roving bands of marauders went around chopping arms off.

No the reason they are able to make a lot of money is because they were lucky enough to be born in this environment. They should afford that opportunity to all who are here.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |