Ann Coulter says Republicans should accept higher taxes, makes Hannity's head explode

[Incorruptible]

Uhhh-Waaaahhh! Need the number for the Wahmbulance?

Just think of your butthurt as reality therapy, as impetus to re-evaluate your most cherished beliefs. You know, consider the possibility that you might be mistaken about the nature of reality & your connection to it.

Not likely.

I am not butthurt though, gotta love how leftists like to exaggerate

 

[Fern]

Ann Coulter says Republicans should accept higher taxes, makes Hannity's head explode

I don't under stand all this fuss.

Boehner long ago capitulated and agreed to raise taxes. The issue now at question raised how (reduced deductions vs increased rates) and how much.

IIRC, Obama's proposal calls $160 billion per year. If so, that is far more than just rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

Fern

 

[Fern]

I think the Republicans are dickheads because they could've made the Bush tax cuts permanent during the 4 years they controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency.

Bush was a tax-raiser.

No, I don't think so.

Control of the Senate went back and forth, and the parties had the slimmest of majority (IIRC, it 51 v 49).

IIRC, the tax cuts passed under the Budget Reconciliation method (it requires only a simple majority and precludes use of a filibuster in the Senate). That methods requires a bill so passed to exist for only 10 yrs.

Fern

 

[ch33zw1z]

The government encouraged them and played a big role, if the government wasn't involved then this wouldn't have happened

You can't blame just one entity and keep going. Three factors IMO:

1. Banks poor lending practices
2. Government involvement
3. People borrowing more than they can afford

I don't really care if the government encouraged them. Banks know what they can and cannot do financially. They dug their own grave, and they should've been buried as a result. People should do the math and know what they can afford.

When my wife and I were looking for a mortgage, we knew that 170k was our max. And that was like the tippity-top. The first bank we went to approved us for 225k. When I question the loan officer, he danced around any real answer. He assumed a certain percentage raise every year, and also included overtime pay as our overall income, which I had specifically requested be left out.

The banks dug....their....own....grave. As did Americans. We continue to do so by buying into the credit system.

 

[ch33zw1z]

This! The government has no restraint and they keep spending money on useless things and STEAL from the people

I also agree with this. They have dug our graves for us as well.

 

[Ausm]

GOVERNMENT not the banks were responsible.

I take it you don't have a clue what credit default swaps are?

 

[badb0y]

The "radical right" does. Hence, why Dems !@#$ and moan over the end of the country if Neocons like Bush don't take charge again.

I agree we need to cut spending but not the way the radical right is proposing it. We need spending cuts with tax raises and take a balanced approach to the problem and we should not expect to solve the deficit spending in one swoop. We need a plan that works over time and eventually I think we will be back to a budget surplus.

 

[Incorruptible]

I agree we need to cut spending but not the way the radical right is proposing it. We need spending cuts with tax raises and take a balanced approach to the problem and we should not expect to solve the deficit spending in one swoop. We need a plan that works over time and eventually I think we will be back to a budget surplus.

What does the "radical right" want and how are they different from the radical left?

 

[Jhhnn]

You can't blame just one entity and keep going. Three factors IMO:

1. Banks poor lending practices
2. Government involvement
3. People borrowing more than they can afford

I don't really care if the government encouraged them. Banks know what they can and cannot do financially. They dug their own grave, and they should've been buried as a result. People should do the math and know what they can afford.

When my wife and I were looking for a mortgage, we knew that 170k was our max. And that was like the tippity-top. The first bank we went to approved us for 225k. When I question the loan officer, he danced around any real answer. He assumed a certain percentage raise every year, and also included overtime pay as our overall income, which I had specifically requested be left out.

The banks dug....their....own....grave. As did Americans. We continue to do so by buying into the credit system.

You overlook a few important points. First off, Investment bankers, the masters of the universe, got enormously richer even as they rode their corporate steeds into the dirt. If you think they were personally invested in the bunk they were peddling, you're out of your mind. They're diversified worldwide, financially unassailable.

You ignore the effects of top tier windfall "tax relief" entirely. That led to a lot of hot money & willingness to speculate. The wealthy put thier money in hedge funds gambling on derivatives & upper middle class people started flipping houses as never before, speculating on Florida condos & Arizona winter homes, all of it based on the theory of the greater fool.

Finally, you discount the importance of leadership entirely, and that's a big factor. GWB touted the ownership society from the bully pulpit, and every right wing pundit & prognosticator joined the chorus. The Bush Admin facilitated Wall St in ways beyond that- with ridiculously lax enforcement of existing regs, stymied state regulators, relaxed net capital rules even as they demanded that the GSE's take on more "affordable" loans, even buying Wall St's MBS.

We didn't just fall into this trap- we were led into it, the same way a Judas goat leads sheep to slaughter.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

I am not butthurt though, gotta love how leftists like to exaggerate

Do you ever look in the mirror and realize how fucking ignorant and wrong you are?

Incorruptible's posts are synonymous with "Incorrect."

 

[ch33zw1z]

You overlook a few important points. First off, Investment bankers, the masters of the universe, got enormously richer even as they rode their corporate steeds into the dirt. If you think they were personally invested in the bunk they were peddling, you're out of your mind. They're diversified worldwide, financially unassailable.

You ignore the effects of top tier windfall "tax relief" entirely. That led to a lot of hot money & willingness to speculate. The wealthy put thier money in hedge funds gambling on derivatives & upper middle class people started flipping houses as never before, speculating on Florida condos & Arizona winter homes, all of it based on the theory of the greater fool.

Finally, you discount the importance of leadership entirely, and that's a big factor. GWB touted the ownership society from the bully pulpit, and every right wing pundit & prognosticator joined the chorus. The Bush Admin facilitated Wall St in ways beyond that- with ridiculously lax enforcement of existing regs, stymied state regulators, relaxed net capital rules even as they demanded that the GSE's take on more "affordable" loans, even buying Wall St's MBS.

We didn't just fall into this trap- we were led into it, the same way a Judas goat leads sheep to slaughter.

Additional info always helps. I never claimed to know it all. So, thanks for adding to my post. My main point is that I believe we never should have bailed anything out. I do believe we were led into it as well, and I don't believe it's going to change.

 

[hal2kilo]

Why do you say that?

He heard it on Fox News.

 

[hal2kilo]

You can't blame just one entity and keep going. Three factors IMO:

1. Banks poor lending practices
2. Government involvement
3. People borrowing more than they can afford

I don't really care if the government encouraged them. Banks know what they can and cannot do financially. They dug their own grave, and they should've been buried as a result. People should do the math and know what they can afford.

When my wife and I were looking for a mortgage, we knew that 170k was our max. And that was like the tippity-top. The first bank we went to approved us for 225k. When I question the loan officer, he danced around any real answer. He assumed a certain percentage raise every year, and also included overtime pay as our overall income, which I had specifically requested be left out.

The banks dug....their....own....grave. As did Americans. We continue to do so by buying into the credit system.

Really, show me a realtor that hasn't encouraged you to borrow the maximum amount that you can. Unfortunately, most people don't realize that the realtor is only working for the seller and their own commision.

 

[Matt1970]

I don't under stand all this fuss.

Boehner long ago capitulated and agreed to raise taxes. The issue now at question raised how (reduced deductions vs increased rates) and how much.

IIRC, Obama's proposal calls $160 billion per year. If so, that is far more than just rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

Fern

That's because Obama wants the tax hikes as well as the reduction in loopholes/deductions. That all gets gobbled up by his $150 Stimulus.

 

[Jhhnn]

That's because Obama wants the tax hikes as well as the reduction in loopholes/deductions. That all gets gobbled up by his $150 Stimulus.

For the first year, yes. Don't claim to have a crystal ball about following years. The 2013 deficit is projected to be lower, anyway, but only if Obama's tax increases are implemented.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43539

 

[Zstream]

For the first year, yes. Don't claim to have a crystal ball about following years. The 2013 deficit is projected to be lower, anyway, but only if Obama's tax increases are implemented.



http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43539

Are you really quoting the cbo? Really?

 

[Jhhnn]

Are you really quoting the cbo? Really?

Denial serves you not at all. Google "projected federal deficit 2013" for similar results.

It's not like I linked Infowars, Newsmax or World Nut Daily...

 

[Incorruptible]

Are you really quoting the cbo? Really?

Did you expect anything less, he needs something that affirms his bias