Check out some similar questions!

paraclete · Dec 9, 2012, 02:00 AM

what Obama has probably realised is this fiscal cliff is rhetorical, that is it is just so much Bullshlt. The economy won't collapse, the job creaters won't spend their money now, so changing the equation isn't going to make a difference, and a little less spending, well you won't see an immediate effect from that either, so the world as we know it will go on, and those who should pay more in one form or another, will

talaniman · Dec 9, 2012, 06:21 AM

Tell that to all those contractors sweating bullets about the military budget cuts looming after the first of the year.

excon · Dec 9, 2012, 06:43 AM

Hello again,

Republicans believe that UNCERTAINTY is holding back the economy... But, they want to use the debt ceiling debate to "get stuff", and that's going to create some UNCERTAINTY. In fact, that's going to create a LOT of uncertainty.

The last time they did this, our vaunted credit rating was reduced costing us BILLIONS of $$'s. Why would they do that?

excon

tomder55 · Dec 9, 2012, 07:36 AM

Because the President has no intention to rein in spending . So all the tax increases he proposes will do no good .In fact they will be harmful because while he is increasing spending ,revenues will drop as happens every time there is a tax increase .
The President has no intention to do good faith negotiations .That was made clear with his proposal to add stimulus spending increases on the table

The President's 'my way or the higway' approach won't cut it . I don't care how big a margin of victory he had. That doesn't mean squat. It's about time that he seriously negotiate with the House leadership and act like a freakin President .instead of a community organizer with a bull horn .
You want certainty ? I'll give you certainty . The President's plan will extend the capital investment strike and we will go into a double dip recession if he doesn't change his path.

excon · Dec 9, 2012, 08:13 AM

Hello again, tom:

So, cooperation and compromise are out the window, huh? Of course, you blame Obama, but the COUNTRY is blaming the Republicans. 2014 is going to be another landslide. But, I digress. It's clear that there's NO give in tax RATE increases.. But, it's going to happen ANYWAY whether you agree with them or not. That's a WIN for Obama. Once the tax hikes go into effect, all Obama has to do is LOWER them for the middle class. That'll be EASY.

So, it looks like another congress who says NO. We'll take care of that in two years.

excon

excon · Dec 9, 2012, 08:43 AM

Hello again,

I'm a renter. I don't GET the HANDOUT that homeowners do. I'd be happy if they close that loophole. Of course, Steve doesn't think HIS deduction IS a loophole. But, to those who don't get them, EVERY deduction is a loophole.

Would you wingers give that up, or would you rather tax the super duper rich... It's a BIG chunk of change. When it comes to YOUR deductions, somehow, I think you'd rather the rich pay more.. Go ahead, tell me how magnanimous your are.

excon

paraclete · Dec 9, 2012, 01:55 PM

Your problem, Ex, is the Republican party, hey, most of your politics is run by rich dudes, so they are going to say no to anything that affects them.

Tom the government has contractors so it can lay them off without consequences, so no one said what they do is permanent, they will just have to find cushy jobs elsewhere, just like everyone else

tomder55 · Dec 9, 2012, 02:34 PM

I'd rather no deductions and a flat tax. In fact I claim a progressive tax violates my 14th amendment rights to equal treatment under the law. You're worried about screwing the 'super duper rich' (under Obama defined as a 2 income of $250,000) . Then why don't you put a tax on wealth so that blowhard Warren Buffet can pay his fair share ?

paraclete · Dec 9, 2012, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by tomder55

I'd rather no deductions and a flat tax. In fact I claim a progressive tax violates my 14th amendment rights to equal treatment under the law. You're worried about screwing the 'super duper rich' (under Obama defined as a 2 income of $250,000) . Then why don't you put a tax on wealth so that blowhard Warren Buffet can pay his fair share ?

a tax on wealth, so you are in favour of a new tax, how would you administer such a thing? Tax net worth, what a nightmare, stocks would be valued at zero overnight, the value of property would drop and where do you get the valuations this is based on. No, it would have to be something more simple and less subject to manipulation, a tax on bank balances and bonds, but that is discriminatory since if I hold my wealth in gold? Silver? Jewels, art. The reason it has not been done is it isn't practical. You tax wealth and wealth will leave the country. You want to tax wealth, tax transactions

Buffet is not against paying his share, he is waiting for someone to change the rules which his own class won't do out of self interest, so you want the blowhards to pay their share ask the republicans to go first

tomder55 · Dec 9, 2012, 04:08 PM

Buffet is not against paying his share

. BS .he intentionally takes a minimal salary and then complains he isn't taxed enough . I know how it works . Rich Dems set up the tax code so they can keep their wealth and to prevent any other aspirants to reach their level of wealth,

paraclete · Dec 9, 2012, 04:46 PM

The rules allow anyone to defer income, when you own the company you don't need to take a salary but you do get income and it is taxable somewhere. You just need to get it together so there aren't different classes of income or taxpayer and then remove all the concessions and loopholes so you have a level playing ground. Do republicans believe in a level playing ground Tom or one rule for the rich and another for the suckers, er, taxpayers .

Your minimum tax was a step in the right direction obviously Buffet recognised and acknowledged that. Stop trying to get a free ride on the back of the suckers, er, taxpayers. Tell you wha,t you want a flat rate tax, 30% sound fair to you?

tomder55 · Dec 9, 2012, 05:20 PM

I'm a flat tax type of guy .I don't know or care about the particular plans the Repubics come up with . They are part of the problem too.

tell you wha,t you want a flat rate tax, 30% sound fair to you?

No that is an obscene level of taxation for any income.The real problem is that you and the left here think the government needs that type of confiscation .I say they could provide the constitutional necessary services for much less.

paraclete · Dec 9, 2012, 05:58 PM

Well Tom what is fair, it has to be enough so the government not only covers its expenses it get out of debt. At the moment it needs to about double to achieve that in any meaningful way. The reality is you have spent your way into the poor house, too many wars, too much pandering to the rich, too much spent on aircraft carriers, etc. You need to take a Greek haircut

tomder55 · Dec 9, 2012, 06:51 PM

You need to take a Greek haircut

fine with me. Start with budget cuts .

paraclete · Dec 9, 2012, 07:11 PM

A Greek haircut consists of several measures; increased taxation, lower salaries for public servants and parliamentarians, less public servants, lower pensions, higher retirement age, and of course renegotiating the national debt bringing your credit rating to junk status.

You favour one measure like your republican buddies but reality is you need total reform

tomder55 · Dec 10, 2012, 04:04 AM

I'm all for tax reform .It won't happen before the new year. Speaker Bonehead met with the President yesterday. I'm sure in the end he'll cave. Better make sure he has Madame Mimi on board because he won't have the TP coalition. Not after his purge of them this week. Meanwhile Harry Reid and the do nothing Senate plays pocket pool another week.

paraclete · Dec 10, 2012, 06:01 AM

Down you go, down to the depths and it is only a miserable 5% that is being argued about. Think what you could accomplish if you only agreed about something, you might even be able to reduce your greenhouse gas emissions for real

tomder55 · Dec 10, 2012, 07:02 AM

The US forests and land use has increased our sequestration through a carbon sink . We were well on our way to cleaner air long before Kyoto . Save it for China.
5% here 5% there . There are NEVER concessions from the Dems about spending unless it's about gutting the military. They have this phoney base line budgetting so they can make the absurd claim that a reduction in the rate of spending increase is a cut .
Baseline Reform - Citizens Against Government Waste

Screw them.. a line has to be drawn somewhere. Let them budge on spending and entitlement reform and then we can talk. OR even better... They want taxes at Clintoon levels... Let them brings spending back to Clintoon levels... that would be a good start .

tomder55 · Dec 10, 2012, 07:21 AM

But not to worry libs. I'm hearing one Republic after another surrender on this.. Rand Paul even floated the idea of voting 'present ' and letting Reid get his way in the Senate on a simple majority vote. Speaker Bonehead has at least shown some spine.

excon · Dec 10, 2012, 07:29 AM

Hello again, tom:

There are SOME in your party who realize that they LOST the election.. Then there are SOME, you for instance, who don't. The ones who realize it, are trying to salvage the election of 2014, where the balance of the Tea Partiers are BOUND to be swept out of office IF they don't start GOVERNING.

I'm not sure sure which position I like better.

excon