Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I did not say otherwise, nor did the editorial. Yes, the tax breaks were for everyone. The editorial addressed only the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans.
I could not tell from your post. Do you believe the following?
Increasing the debt by $35 billion for unemployment benefits for regular people is a bad thing.
Increasing the debt by $678 billion for the extension of tax breaks specifically for the wealthiest of Americans is a good thing.
That's not the topic of this thread.
I keep wondering what the unemployed will think about getting a job when the Obamacare income taxes go into effect January 1, 2011. When they see what their working friends have happen to them they won't ever want to go back to work. Do you have any idea how much middle class taxes will go up because they have company supplied health insurance? When you find out you will understand what we are saying.
What happens when the Burger King's are closing because there are too few customers?
Then Arby's, Taco Bells, and McDonalds has to hire more to provide for their increased business.. Seriously, do you think people can give up eating..
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW
The unemployment payments should be extended indefinitely for some employment categories.
Fantastic, why dont you list some of these categories, I'm anxiously awaiting to change my field of employment into one you list so I can retire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW
They can be paid for by tax increases on the upper 1% of the population.
Has there ever been a solution provided by you that didnt involve taxing the upper 1% of the population? Seriously, this is what you say for everything..
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW
The hyper wealthy won't miss the pocket change and the unemployable will be able to keep paying their bills.
Haha, except for the fact that you forget that the uber wealthy own these Burger Kings etc, and will simply lay people off to pay the extra tax.. yeah, thats some solution there..
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW
They might even keep the local Burger King from closing and making some jobs available.
Its a wonderful day when liberals sight jobs at Burger King, as a sign that their programs are working..
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW
The assertion that the Dems have done nothing about jobs is absurd. If you still have a job you can thank the stimulus program. If you just got a job you can thank it even more.
haha, so Democrats who held Congress through the WHOLE increase in unemployment and did nothing about it, should be thanked for allowing us to obtain a job.. Oooh just when I thought it couldnt get any funnier you prove me wrong..
The trouble with each government program that gives away "just a few hundred billion," is that there are an infinite amount of them. And they don't give away once, they continue to give away, year after year. Until we have a $13 trillion debt for the grandkids to deal with, and we all pray the Chinese keep buying our debt, since if they don't, interest rates will rise, and we'll all be sending 80% of our income to Washington JUST TO PAY INTEREST ON THE DEBT.
A tax cut is not a "cost" to the government, while a program that sends some people money (confiscated from others), is. If government takes only 40% of my income, instead of 45%, I have not "cost" the government 5% of my income, any more than if I don't win the lottery, it cost me $40 million dollars. The government does not have a right to 100% of my income, as Liberals think.
Every dollar Americans do NOT send to Washington can be spent in the economy and helps a multitude of people: the person who earned it, the businesses where it is spent, and the employees of those business. It can even be given to charity. It was not confiscated from anyone, and so is a benefit to all and nobody was hurt/robbed.
Every dollar sent to Washington not only is confiscated from someone who had to work to earn it, but also increases the massive federal bureaucracy, makes politicians more tax-mad for more money and power, goes to fund a million things many of us are adamantly against (like sending our Servicemen overseas in unwinnable, senseless foreign wars), results in billions being "lost" and stolen and used for graft and pork, and in general results in only a penny or so going to what the taxpayer may support, like higher education, or lunches for poor children. A good investment?
Wouldn't that dollar be much better spent if given directly to the things you support, instead of letting the government monster grow so large that it kills the entire economy as well as the Middle Class? Let alone the argument that if I work to earn that dollar, I should be the one to spend it--not a corrupt, fiscally irresponsible, power-mad politician in Washington.
How can the American people, who are so obsessed with their offspring, allow their government to run up these debts for the kids to pay? That's like a middle-class set of parents running up a debt of hundreds of millions of dollars by going to Vegas and buying every illegal drug imaginable every day, and then transferring the debt to their son and daughter as they graduate college and hope to find an entry-level job.
The trouble with each government program that gives away "just a few hundred billion," is that there are an infinite amount of them. And they don't give away once, they continue to give away, year after year. Until we have a $13 trillion debt for the grandkids to deal with, and we all pray the Chinese keep buying our debt, since if they don't, interest rates will rise, and we'll all be sending 80% of our income to Washington JUST TO PAY INTEREST ON THE DEBT.
A tax cut is not a "cost" to the government, while a program that sends some people money (confiscated from others), is. If government takes only 40% of my income, instead of 45%, I have not "cost" the government 5% of my income, any more than if I don't win the lottery, it cost me $40 million dollars. The government does not have a right to 100% of my income, as Liberals think.
Every dollar Americans do NOT send to Washington can be spent in the economy and helps a multitude of people: the person who earned it, the businesses where it is spent, and the employees of those business. It can even be given to charity. It was not confiscated from anyone, and so is a benefit to all and nobody was hurt/robbed.
Every dollar sent to Washington not only is confiscated from someone who had to work to earn it, but also increases the massive federal bureaucracy, makes politicians more tax-mad for more money and power, goes to fund a million things many of us are adamantly against (like sending our Servicemen overseas in unwinnable, senseless foreign wars), results in billions being "lost" and stolen and used for graft and pork, and in general results in only a penny or so going to what the taxpayer may support, like higher education, or lunches for poor children. A good investment?
Wouldn't that dollar be much better spent if given directly to the things you support, instead of letting the government monster grow so large that it kills the entire economy as well as the Middle Class? Let alone the argument that if I work to earn that dollar, I should be the one to spend it--not a corrupt, fiscally irresponsible, power-mad politician in Washington.
How can the American people, who are so obsessed with their offspring, allow their government to run up these debts for the kids to pay? That's like a middle-class set of parents running up a debt of hundreds of millions of dollars by going to Vegas and buying every illegal drug imaginable every day, and then transferring the debt to their son and daughter as they graduate college and hope to find an entry-level job.
Ding ding ding! NHartphotog gets it. For every $1 the government pulls out of the economy via taxes to spend on government administration and programs, they cause $1.10 worth of destruction to the economy. http://mercatus.org/sites/default/fi...nd%20taxes.pdf
We need to REDUCE taxes and REDUCE government spending. Are you listening, Obama? (to paraphrase Rick Santelli)
Fiscal conservatism does not mean raising taxes and taking away more money from Americans, it means limiting all the federal spending on social programs and political agenda items.
Fiscal conservatism should be about being prudent in how you receive and spend money. And government receives via taxes. As the article clearly states, that massive tax cuts were instituted on the premise that we had a budget surplus. Now we don't. What justifies continuing on that premise, again?
Now you speak of spending cuts without clarifying what would be cut and what the savings will be, and if it will even compensate for nearly $700B in tax cuts.
You subscribe to the "fiscal conservatism" lip service that tax cut and spend republicans have used for way too long, and without any fear of accountability. Give me details of the plan that these politicians you support are operating on, and have promised on spending cuts that will more than make up for tax cuts. Talk is cheap.
A tax cut is not a "cost" to the government, while a program that sends some people money (confiscated from others), is.
Both cost to the bottom line. But one guarantees a higher rate of return. Guess which one it is. No, not the one you support. How do you think the proponents are claiming the $700B hole will not only be addressed but turned around to reduce deficits? I would like to know.
No, I don't want to revise that opinion. What I would like to do is teach a class full of liberals on the meaning of Rhetorical Appeals.
While you're dilly-dallying in the world of fast food economics, i'm making the point that American's need to hunker down and accept any job they can find right now instead of relying on Democrats to give them a handout. There are jobs. Plenty of them. People simply don't want to do crap work so they expect the handout instead. That was my point. It was rhetorical. Study up. You'll feel better about yourself. I promise.
Main Entry: rhe·tor·i·cal
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈtȯr-i-kəl, -ˈtär-\
Variant(s): also rhe·tor·ic \ri-ˈtȯr-ik, -ˈtär-\
Function: adjective
Date: 15th century 1 a: of, relating to, or concerned with rhetoricb: employed for rhetorical effect; especially: asked merely for effect with no answer expected
<a rhetorical question>
In order to teach a class, you have to master a subject. Since you've just outed yourself in wanting to only be able to lecture and argue with yourself, and that you're not actually concerned with being shown the fallacy of your arguments, it's makes so much more sense in your postings.
While I'm dilly-dallying showing you the fallacy of your opinion, American's EVERY SINGLE DAY, are taking jobs, anywhere they can get them. Your assertion that American's are not, is not only completely false and misleading, but obfuscating the fact that people are doing almost anything to get by. But even those jobs are not open to just be able to walk in and take. There are as of June 237 MILLION people out of work, who can not find jobs. Do you think there are 237 MILLION jobs @ Burger King or Lowe's, or Home Depot or wherever else you frequent?
Admittedly, there will always be some that are just expecting a hand-out, they were there for the past 8, 12, 16 years. They are there right now. But I guarantee you they are a SMALL, SMALL number of that 237 MILLION people!
You should actually arm yourself with facts and knowledge before asking someone to study up, not only will you feel better about it, and quit getting your butt handed to you, but we will be allowed possibly some more interesting and engaging comments, instead of having to deal with your 'rhetorical questions', since that's all it appears you're armed with.
237 MILLION people...let's see you dig up those 237 MILLION jobs since you see help wanted signs everywhere, and by yourself get them working. I will then make sure by hook or crook your installed as the next President of the United States.
Since congress has been unable to control spending, it just doesn't have the spare $35 billion for unemployment benefits. Reminds be of the poster who chided me for pointing out the efforts of PorkBusters during the Bush years, saying that pork is only in the short billions, not anywhere close to the trillion of government budget. So, if Congress were to cut the pork spending could they then afford unemployment?
And as far as the Bush tax cuts, that's just Congressionally justified theft from the citizens meant to satisfy their own lust for control. Liberals attempting to fund unemployment by complaining that Congress agreed to let the citizens keep their cash is just extortion.
Congress wants to spend $35 billion it doesn't have so it complains about the $678 billion it doesn't have but they want to spend.
Sounds like a trend. What's the other $643 billion for? Congressional campaign financing and pending unemployment?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
