• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

No Tea for us, thank you. We're Republicans.

techs

techs

Lifer
Ha. Given the opportunity to really put a dent in the deficit by ending the tax cuts for the super rich, the Republicans announced its "business as usual".

Yep. If it benefits the rich, no amount of deficit spending is too much. The claim they did it to help the unemployed, is perhaps the most ridiculous claim ever heard from Washington. Every study shows that the least efficient way to create jobs is tax cuts for the rich.

Yah, the Tea Party is about to find out what Jim Jeffords found out 10 years ago. In the Republican Party the majority of the majority makes the decisions. And you better toe the line.

A handful of tea party reps.? Means nothing to the Republican Party. Oh, they'll get thrown a bone. Maybe the Republicans will make an attempt to make English the "national language". But they would never dream of doing anything that would prevent the millions of illegals from filling the workforces of their Republican donors.

The Tea Party has been tea bagged. And they don't know it cause all the blood has rushed to their other head.
 
techs said:
Ha. Given the opportunity to really put a dent in the deficit by ending the tax cuts for the super rich, the Republicans announced its "business as usual".
Click to expand...
What exactly is your definition of "super rich"? The top 1% is all I keep hearing about (average income of $6mm in 2008), yet the thresholds the Dems propose are well below that level and cuts well into the upper middle class and small businesses at $200k for singles and $250k for marrieds. What gives?
 
How are people getting tax cuts? extending or making permanent the status quo by keeping the current tax rates is not a tax cut. I think you feeding people a big pile of cow chips.

The more people make the more taxes they will pay. People rise up and demand one tax rate for all.
 
I don't have a dog in the tax cut extension fight...my view on it is conflicted:

On one hand, we ought to be repealing all the tax cut extensions so everyone can participate in paying down our rediculous debt.

On the other hand, the federal gov needs to seriously slash it's spending. We do not have a tax receipts problem, we have a spending problem.

I'm not sure what is going to get Congress and the Executive to tackle our debt issue, however, maybe knowingly having less money to spend will be a good start.

Chuck
 
spidey07 said:
Taxed
Enough
Already

What part of the foundation of the Tea Party don't you get Techs?
Click to expand...

Tea Partiers hate taxes but love government programs. Even a slight majority don't like free trade. What part of that don't you get, spidey?
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
What exactly is your definition of "super rich"? The top 1% is all I keep hearing about (average income of $6mm in 2008), yet the thresholds the Dems propose are well below that level and cuts well into the upper middle class and small businesses at $200k for singles and $250k for marrieds. What gives?
Click to expand...

lol fuck that, what's his definition of "dent"
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
What exactly is your definition of "super rich"? The top 1% is all I keep hearing about (average income of $6mm in 2008), yet the thresholds the Dems propose are well below that level and cuts well into the upper middle class and small businesses at $200k for singles and $250k for marrieds. What gives?
Click to expand...

Be honest. The great majority of the expiring cut falls to the rich. It barely touches the upper upper middle class and true small businesses.
 
techs said:
Ha. Given the opportunity to really put a dent in the deficit by ending the tax cuts for the super rich, the Republicans announced its "business as usual".
Click to expand...

"Really put a dent in the deficit"? Are you fucking kidding me? $70b/year is cat piss compared to what the government wastes on shit we don't need.

Show me that the government is willing to trim the fat and I'll start thinking about giving them more of my money.
 
Teabaggers are going to be used to screw America, then thrown out like soiled condoms. If they really think GOP gives a sh!t about them, or anyone other than their wealthy base, that's pretty sad.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
What exactly is your definition of "super rich"? The top 1% is all I keep hearing about (average income of $6mm in 2008), yet the thresholds the Dems propose are well below that level and cuts well into the upper middle class and small businesses at $200k for singles and $250k for marrieds. What gives?
Click to expand...

They also proposed extending the tax cuts to only 1 million per year or higher, and the Repubs shot that down too.

At that point, you're looking at what most would percieve as the 'super rich'.
 
drebo said:
"Really put a dent in the deficit"? Are you fucking kidding me? $70b/year is cat piss compared to what the government wastes on shit we don't need.

Show me that the government is willing to trim the fat and I'll start thinking about giving them more of my money.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Why the fuck should anyone give this piece of shit government more of their money to piss it away on crap?
 
RbSX said:
They also proposed extending the tax cuts to only 1 million per year or higher, and the Repubs shot that down too.

At that point, you're looking at what most would percieve as the 'super rich'.
Click to expand...
I agree that a $1mm threshold is much more reasonable. Too bad they couldn't reach a compromise. BTW...the White House was against the $1mm threshold which I thought was strange.
 
Last edited:
Doc Savage Fan said:
I agree that a $1mm threshold is much more reasonable. Too bad they couldn't reach a compromise. BTW...the White House was against the $1mm threshold which I thought was strange.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. They threw it out there, even though they realized that it wasn't necessarily wanted, and let the republican's shoot it down.


This is certainly going to be used by the dems to say that they tried compromise and gave up some of what they wanted.
 
RbSX said:
Doesn't matter. They threw it out there, even though they realized that it wasn't necessarily wanted, and let the republican's shoot it down.


This is certainly going to be used by the dems to say that they tried compromise and gave up some of what they wanted.
Click to expand...
And I'm sure the Republicans will say they compromised by agreeing to extend unemployment benefits with deficit spending.
 
Any hypocrite has gotta gotta love what we got all in the name of tax fairness and reducing the deficit.

The Republirats get their tax cuts for the super rich, the Dimorats get extended unemployment for the unemployed, and guess what, it balloons our National debt. Pretty soon, just the cost of interest to service the extra 7 Trillion of our existing Nation debt we have added in just one decade will get so great that all our entire Federal budget will end up servicing the National Debt. And if interest rates ever go up, that not too distant future can become yesterday.

I am so happy I could puke.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top