Ask Me Help Desk - The fiscal cliff

Hello tom:

Assuming you're correct, it's another reason WHY we should pass Medicare for all, and SAVE the trillions of $$'s we now waste...

Or, in the alternative, I'd be happy to hear what right wingers are going to do with out of control health care costs. You DO realize that THOSE are the expenses that are killing our great nation. It's NOT welfare. It's NOT foodstamps. It's NOT SS. It's NOT Medicare. You COMPLAIN about spending, don't you? Why shouldn't we bring THAT spending in line? Then you can have all the aircraft carriers your right wing mentality desires.

excon

Great math Tom, but of course skewed by capitalistic thinking because government doesn't have to show profit to take care of its security to its people. While you righties want to save money by cutting benefits your businesses are still making record profits without creating jobs or paying taxes. Sweet deal by any standard.

However the payroll tax holiday is over too, and the middle working class and below will LOSE a few valuable bucks in this process. Wonder how that will affect buying stuff from rich guys? You know the ones who will still be rich since the $450K cap is for everybody, even gazillionaires?

Further while $450K a year may not be uber rich its still WAY above what the national and regional averages are

The Average Annual Salary in America | eHow.com

Quote:

The average worker in the United States earns an average hourly wage of $20.90, reports the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' 2010-2011 occupational handbook. This rings up to an average annual salary of $43,460.

Read more: The Average Annual Salary in America | eHow.com The Average Annual Salary in America | eHow.com

So while those beloved Bush tax cuts are still needed by most people, those rich guys will still be rich, so what's the problem if it goes to getting the economy out of the gutter. So according to you its unfair that benefits and breaks for ordinary folks is paid for by rich folks who didn't even know it was a recession?

Why shouldn't we tax the "job creators" who didn't create jobs? Only conservatives would be trying to hold the door open for policies that extract more loot from the national economy, while returning nothing. Bet if we tied the tax structure to the true unemployment numbers, we would have more jobs.

So crunch you numbers and justify to yourself why rich people are more important than poor people. That's making capitalism God, and par for the course for those that put profits before people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello tom:

Assuming you're correct, it's another reason WHY we should pass Medicare for all, and SAVE the trillions of $$'s we now waste...

Or, in the alternative, I'd be happy to hear what right wingers are gonna do with out of control health care costs. You DO realize that THOSE are the expenses that are killing our great nation. It's NOT welfare. It's NOT foodstamps. It's NOT SS. It's NOT Medicare. You COMPLAIN about spending, don't you?? Why shouldn't we bring THAT spending in line? Then you can have all the aircraft carriers your right wing mentality desires.

excon

Sorry ,can't go under the assumption that more government control of the economy will improve the situation since I am of the opinion that government intervention is the reason for the health care cost explosion.

I don't agree as there is evidence that health care is a valuable NEED by more and more and the rise of costs for it has been growing for decades while consumers were systematically being ripped off at the worst times for more profit and cost shifted to government and tax payers.

If anyhing there wasn't enough regulation, oversight, and accountability by government. But spoken like a true capitalist who doesn't believe in government in the first place.

Hello again, tom:

So, you don't believe Mitt Romney. Maybe that's why he lost. Of all the lies he told during the election, the ONE truth he spoke, was that Israel spends 5% of GDP LESS on health care than we do, and gets a BETTER result...

I'm just saying we should DO what severely conservative Mitt would have done.

excon

Quote:

because government doesn't have to show profit to take care of its security to its people.

Of that I don't dispute . Government is a very poor money manager .Many of the problems could be solved with simple efficiency management . But of course ,it is not in the interest of the various bureaucrats to operate on a tight budget like the rest of the country is forced to do.

Quote:

So while those beloved Bush tax cuts are still needed by most people

Knew I'd get you libs to admit the Bush tax cuts were a good thing.

Quote:

However the payroll tax holiday is over too, and the middle working class and below will LOSE a few valuable bucks in this process.

Good . That intentional gutting of the funding for Social Security had to end.

Quote:

So according to you its unfair that benefits and breaks for ordinary folks is paid for by rich folks who didn't even know it was a recession?

Unlike you ,I don't speak of fairness . If you were serious about fairness ,you'd see that the only fair tax rate is a flat no deduction system.

Quote:

Why shouldn't we tax the "job creators" who didn't create jobs? Only conservatives would be trying to hold the door open for policies that extract more loot from the national economy, while returning nothing. Bet if we tied the tax structure to the true unemployment numbers, we would have more jobs.

Sorry ;have no idea what you are talking about.

Quote:

So crunch you numbers and justify to yourself why rich people are more important than poor people. That's making capitalism God, and par for the course for those that put profits before people.

yawn... socialists see failure everywhere their system is tried and yet still try to impose it here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

So, you don't believe Mitt Romney. Maybe that's why he lost. Of all the lies he told during the election, the ONE truth he spoke, was that Israel spends 5% of GDP LESS on health care than we do, and gets a BETTER result...

I'm just saying we should DO what severely conservative Mitt would have done.

excon

You know very well that Mittens was at best my fall back ,lesser of 2 evils alternative .

Quote:
Because government doesn't have to show profit to take care of its security to its people.

Of that I don't dispute . Government is a very poor money manager .Many of the problems could be solved with simple efficiency management . But of course ,it is not in the interest of the various bureaucrats to operate on a tight budget like the rest of the country is forced to do.

Extractionism, and starving he beast isn't the answer. Nor is hiding real costs like wars, or contractor perks and over runs for projecs. I go with more efficiency though.

Quote:
So while those beloved Bush tax cuts are still needed by most people

Knew I'd get you libs to admit the Bush tax cuts were a good thing.

For most Americans they were but for rich people? NEVER should have happened.

Quote:
However the payroll tax holiday is over too, and the middle working class and below will LOSE a few valuable bucks in this process.

Good . That intentional gutting of the funding for Social Security had to end.

I agree but then raising the cap for taxes for social security would also help even more.

Quote:
So according to you its unfair that benefits and breaks for ordinary folks is paid for by rich folks who didn't even know it was a recession?

Unlike you ,I don't speak of fairness . If you were serious about fairness ,you'd see that the only fair tax rate is a flat no deduction system.

That might be fair for the richer Americans but destroys the buying power of average and below average people in a consumer driven economy. Thats hardly FAIR, but of course what do conservatives care about minimum wage workers who are already on food stamps.

But such a flat tax would make McDonalds an even bigger company and their employees unable toafford a whopper,,,,,,,,,er...........make that a big mac, Sorry.

Quote:
Why shouldn't we tax the "job creators" who didn't create jobs? Only conservatives would be trying to hold the door open for policies that extract more loot from the national economy, while returning nothing. Bet if we tied the tax structure to the true unemployment numbers, we would have more jobs.

Sorry ;have no idea what you are talking about.

Of course you don't because you have a capitalistic profits over people idea of what fairness is.I mean heaven forbid that businesses are actually responsible for creating jobs as well as making money off the backs of workers. Profit without people is robbery and greed.

But I understand why fairness and responsibility is foreign to conservatives.The fix is simple, stop lying and calling rich guys job creators and be honest and be the greedy fat cats we know and...........wait for it..................LOVE!!!!

Would tying taxes for the rich reduce profit? I don't think so.

Quote:
So crunch you numbers and justify to yourself why rich people are more important than poor people. That's making capitalism God, and par for the course for those that put profits before people.

Yawn... socialists see failure everywhere their system is tried and yet still try to impose it here.

And capitalist see fairness as socialism. Let face it, the reason fat cats are running to other countries is to exploit cheap labor, no rules, and a lot of new cutomers they can raise prices on. Admit it, thats why you are a conservative in the first place except when it comes to profits over people then you don't care what they call you.

Nor surprising you have no clue what I'm talking about.

[QUOTE]Of course you don't because you have a capitalistic profits over people idea of what fairness is.I mean heaven forbid that businesses are actually responsible for creating jobs as well as making money off the backs of workers. Profit without people is robbery and greed.

But I understand why fairness and responsibility is foreign to conservatives.The fix is simple, stop lying and calling rich guys job creators and be honest and be the greedy fat cats we know and... wait for it... LOVE!!

Would tying taxes for the rich reduce profit? I don't think so.
[/QUOTE oh wait... I think I get it... you think that taxing the rich more will compel them to create jobs. Lol... not surprising coming from someone who thinks the government is the job creator .

Clintons job creation of 20 million jobs with a 41% tax rate was a good example to emulate. What's yours? Richs guys will make jobs if they want more profits. But you have to have demand or supply is of little use for expansion.

Seems capitalist should know that. Oh that's right, you don't need anyone but yourself to get rich and the more loot you have, the better person you are. Certainly better than those lazy slobs who pay NO taxes, and are jealous of your own fortune.

Heard a great idea. The House should amend the bill the Senate passed last night while the rest of the country was distracted concluding their celebration of the New Year. The House should pass the bill with a single amendment to eliminate the tax increase that Obamacare forces on the nation with it's medical device tax. Then it would go to a conference committee . Dare the Senate to reject the provision and the President to veto it because it eliminates an unnecessary tax on pacemakers and insulin pumps.
Since y'all defend Obamacare... defend that tax increase .

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Clintons job creation of 20million jobs with a 41% tax rate was a good example to emulate. Whats yours?

Oh so now you tout the dot com boom and bust as your best example ? Then why don't you say that all the Bush tax rates should be repealed like President Zero said in the campaign ? Why don't you praise the budget cuts that Clintoon negotiated with Gingrich and the welfare reform ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

The House should pass the bill with a single amendment to eliminate the tax increase that Obamacare forces on the nation with it's medical device tax. Then it would go to a conference committee ..

Surely Tom the time for brinkmanship is over, tweeking whatever has been agreed to just because it wasn't invented here is nonsense, there is a job to be done and it was too hard so they do a little bit and then a new Congress gets to wrestle with the big issues, how to cut expenditure and deal with the debt limit. It's time for responsibility not buck passing

It is good to note that sanity has prevailed and the opposing political views have learned to comprise in the interests of their nation and the world generally. It is hoped the coming months might see a similar spirit of bipartanism to resolve deadlocks and bring economic equilibrim closer

Compromise my a$$ .The Repubics caved .

Yes and it is remarkable how little you have to say. It is interesting that when your system is turned on its head it is possible to get something done. A new era has dawned

Clearly weenie whiny Republic leaders have to stand down and step aside to new leadership.

Like that will happen

The lie of the year, already.

" As I've demonstrated throughout the past several weeks, I am very open to compromise." -Barack Obama

I guess all the legislation from now on has to start in the senate and go to the house to be approved which is backwards but the only way to govern against the backward leaning house republicans.

Hope the next batch has more sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

I guess all the legislation from now on has to start in the senate and go to the house to be approved which is backwards but the only way to govern against the backward leaning house republicans.

Hope the next batch has more sense.

Lol ,the obstructionist Harry Reid had to be evicted from his own chamber so the VEEP and the Minority leader could dictate a deal ;a deal that did nothing but kick the can down the road 2 months .

That would be Reid the obstructionist who refuses to take up House legislation that has been passed.

Good thing they voted us off the brink of the cliff... after all ;how would we get to pay for all this pork ? How would Rum producers ,Hollywierdos ,NASCAR ,and Algae growers survive without the largess of the US tax payer ?

Fiscal Cliff Bill Loaded With Pork - US News and World Report

Or NASCAR??

Ridiculous isn't it ? Not one law maker that voted for or against the bill read it . Not one !

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

good thing they voted us off the brink of the cliff .... after all ;how would we get to pay for all this pork ? How would Rum producers ,Hollywierdos ,NASCAR ,and Algae growers survive without the largess of the US tax payer ?

Fiscal Cliff Bill Loaded With Pork - US News and World Report

Nothing new there Tom just kicking the can down the road but why are you complaining that your corportate friends get a handout

Because I'm consistent and have always complained about pork spending .

Tom there is a price for everything, you know that and republican pork is just as much a reality as democratic pork. I'm amazed that there was so much ruckus about so little result. This is just a small part of the annual deficit. Is it that pork exists at all or is it it advantages the wrong people. This taxation change makes a 60 billion a year impact, that is nothing in the deficit or the debt. When are they going to argue the real issues?

Again ;I don't care which party is responsible for the pork spending .the truth is that if it merits congressional consideration it should be the subject of independent legislation ;and not hidden in a massive tax or spending bill.

Quote:

This is just a small part of the annual deficit. Is it that pork exists at all or is it it advantages the wrong people. This taxation change makes a 60 billion a year impact, that is nothing in the deficit or the debt. When are they going to argue the real issues?

They won't because it would mean fundamental changes to their sacred cows... entitlements .

Tom I agree with you about appropriations, this is why such measures are not allowed here, however, aren't you complaining about continuation of existing programs, and not new programs? Undoubtedly these measures were tacked on to something in the past and so you have past congresses to thank for them and a Congress now past for continuing them. You should root out the real culprits and determine who enacted these measures in the first place

I don't know the origin nor do I care. New spending ;old spending ;it's bad spending and a waste of taxpayer's money. Today there is faux outrage over the fact that the House did not pass a so called 'Sandy relief bill'... that is dripping with so much unnecessary wasteful pork that I doubt that any of the money will ever reach the people here who need it .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

again ;I don't care which party is responsible for the pork spending .the truth is that if it merits congressional consideration it should be the subject of independent legislation ;and not hidden in a massive tax or spending bill.

They won't because it would mean fundamental changes to their sacred cows ...entitlements .

Or the bloated defense budget.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Or the bloated defense budget.

Indeed you could halve military expenditure and still have the most effective military in the world, but you won't do it because of the economic impact

How about some Democrap sacred cows ?

Like the cut and paste of a Senate bill crafted in August (The Family and Business Tax Cut Certainty Act of 2012) into the fiscal cliff bill that gave massive subsidies ;not only to the ones cited above , but also gave special interest tax credits to GE,Goldman Sachs, and Citigroup . You think GE needed any more taxpayer subsidies ? You think "banks too big to fail " need subsidies ?
Now get this.. the bill sat on the shelf after the Dem Senate passed it in August ;and that's where it would've stayed except that the President insisted that the bill be added into the fiscal cliff bill. Yeah that's right ;the same man who demagogued against corporate greed during the campaign .This came after the President demanded that a whole slew of temporary corporate tax credits be made permanent . The Repubics refused to sign on to that ,but did allow the bill from August to get into the bill as a rider.So Title II of the fiscal cliff legislation is a word for word replication of the Family and Business Tax Cut Certainty Act of 2012.

Waiting to see if we hear nothing but crickets chirping over that one...

CBO | Family and Business Tax Cut Certainty Act of 2012

Letter on the "Family and Business Tax Cut Certainty Act of 2012" | U.S. Chamber of Commerce

http://www.adp.com/pdf/FINAL-SFC-Extenders-Markup1.pdf

I doubt you read the whole thing or even see that repubs even supported it.

Hello again,

Quote:

Waiting to see if we hear nothing but crickets chirping over that one...

Chirp, chirp...

Look. I don't know WHY you think I carry water for the Democrats... If it was ME, I would have cancelled the DEA.

Here's another thing that'll make you happy... I want CUTS too. I want DEEP cuts. I know how to add. I'm a SMALL government liberal.. It's just that MY cuts wouldn't be YOUR cuts. But, I'd BALANCE the books, and you could take THAT to the bank.

Excon

Hello again,

Let me ask you this.. What if the Republicans said they wouldn't raise the debt ceiling unless they got what they wanted, and the Democrats said, proceed?

Who'd be blamed?

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again,

Chirp, chirp...

Look. I dunno WHY you think I carry water for the Democrats... If it was ME, I woulda cancelled the DEA.

Here's another thing that'll make you happy... I want CUTS too. I want DEEP cuts. I know how to add. I'm a SMALL government liberal.. It's just that MY cuts wouldn't be YOUR cuts. But, I'd BALANCE the books, and you could take THAT to the bank.

excon

And yet you fought tooth and nail for a guy you know wants to spend us into oblivion. Your math don't add up.

Hello again, Steve:

Quote:

And yet you fought tooth and nail for a guy you know wants to spend us into oblivion. Your math don't add up.

Uhhh, I don't know that.

What I DO know, is that you wingers TALK about fiscal responsibility, but when you get the checkbook, you SPEND, and SPEND, and SPEND, and then SPEND some more...

So, if Romney had won, he would have spent money we don't have on wars and more tax cuts for the rich, so, I'd RATHER have a guy who's going to spend money on the health of his people...

My math may not add up, but my MEMORY does. Now, if it was ME, I'd make cuts.

Excon

PS> Are you going to answer about you guys refusing to raise the debt ceiling?