To all the progressives....has it never occurred to you? (Representatives, unemployment rate)
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.
Helping the needy got us into this mess, and today's bill does nothing to address it.
No one is talking about the truly needy. The autistic, downs, major disabled, and others that cannot care for themselves. No one means unemployment and food stamps for a year when things go wrong.
If Grandma can't make it alone, live with family. It was done that way for centuries. You provide her a home, not the taxpayers. I don't see how any decent person would rather have their family member in section 8 or a project.
If your daughter or son has an illegitimate kid, that is their responsibily and their parents. Not the taxpayers. The rate is now over 40%.
If you have children that you cannot afford is it anyones fault other than your own? Foodbanks and private charities are the answer here.
In Youngstown, Ohio they are building new housing projects at well over $100,000 per unit. They are nicer than 99% of the homes in Youngstown. This is not an exaggeration. How could there be an incentive to leave if owning your own home would mean a lesser home.
Headstart, at $9,000+ per kid? Every teacher I know says it is a waste. That is a lot of money to teach them colors and how to stand in line.
Other than temporary assistance, social programs kill initiative and lead to dependency.
The bolded words are just what Obama and crew want to happen.
I see you can show the budget numbers for the last two yours but don't want to talk about them so you use that lame method of backing out. Ah well, so are the vicissitudes of life.
Since I know you will willfully ignore the following link to the articles, I'm willing to waste my time with you anyway. I'm that generous of a guy.
The White House and Republican leaders had been negotiating recently over a comprehensive deal that would have produced $4 trillion in savings, hoping to avoid any possibility of defaulting on the nation's debt ahead of an Aug. 2 deadline to raise the debt ceiling.
On Saturday night, House Speaker John Boehner abandoned the deal, saying a mid-size package of reforms that do not include any kind of increase in taxes on anyone is the only politically viable solution, The Washington Post reports.
The White House responded by releasing a statement decrying the move, saying that "congressional leaders...must reject the politics of least resistance and take on this critical challenge."
In a statement, Boehner said: "Despite good-faith efforts to find common ground, the White House will not pursue a bigger debt reduction agreement without tax hikes. I believe the best approach may be to focus on producing a smaller measure, based on the cuts identified in the Biden-led negotiations, that still meets our call for spending reforms and cuts greater than the amount of any debt limit increase."
Spent more than we should have. Income from the $200k plus crowd had just passed what it was in 2000 but with much less high taxed stock option income also.
I have been talking about the budgets for 2010 and 2011. Sorry so many failed to see what I meant.
roysoldboy with fingers plugged in his ears: "Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah, I don't wanna hear or read your links. Blah blah blah blah. You libs are wrong! Blah blah blah blah."
The fact his behavior in this and other threads where I've encountered him, reflects the attitude above. To me, that's pretty ridiculous.
And you weren't among those crying about budget deficits? What were you doing then? (Would you like me to dig up your posts on the subject?)
Take some time, if you feel it is necessary. After you finish tell me why Obama's deficits are so much different. He promised to end two wars and only managed to start another one. He promised to close Gitmo and didn't even try.
What can be done about the situation by howling and yowling about Bush in trying to defend Obama? Maybe you can explain that to me.
There were no budgets to howl and yowl about with Obama. At least Reid says there weren't right along with the right leaners.
All numbers in 2005 dollars...
Total Federal Tax Revenue, 1998: $2.04T ($1.722T in current dollars)
Total Federal Tax Revenue, 1999: $2.14T ($1.828T in current dollars)
Total Federal Tax Revenue, 2000: $2.31T ($2.025T in current dollars)
Total Federal Tax Revenue, 2001: $2.21T ($1.991T in current dollars)
Total Federal Tax Revenue, 2002: $2.03T ($1.853T in current dollars)
Total Federal Tax Revenue, 2003: $1.90T ($1.782T in current dollars)
Was it all lost revenue, or "lost revenue" due to tax cuts implemented in 2001? Also, how would you explain an increase in AGI in 2003 for the Top 5% (by about $100B) compared to 2002, but a decrease in federal income tax receipts, if not attribute it to tax cuts? This was also true in 2005 when AGI for the top 5% was higher than it was in 2000 (income tax in 2005 from this group, in constant 2005 dollars, was $70B less much less being higher).
As I have said, some of the revenue drop was due to tax cuts, some due to a drop in income from the $200k plus crowd. If you look at the AGI from those making $200k plus in 00 and again 02 you will see a 26% drop in income. The majority of the revenue drop in 01-02 was from this cohort alone.
Sure 2003 was due to tax cuts but the assumption of this post is if we would have kept Clinton's tax rates all would be well, that is a false assumption. Total income was assumed to continue to grow, it did not grow as much as projected by either Clinton or Bush. Income especially among the rich is highly volatile and a poor source for extracting predictable revenue.
Another false assumption is that the income earned in 03-05 would have been the same source of income had the tax system stayed the same, we could never predict when people would have taken capital gains, exercised options or shifted from non-qualified to qualified dividends. It is nearly imposable to speculate.
This is one of the reasons I am against tax code manipulation like Bush did, it is social engineering. The results are always unpredictable and impossible to project with any degree of accuracy.
Are you saying that the problems today were all caused by Boehner? You failed but keep trying. I well remember all that crap that the Congress should have been discussing as far back as january. However, I know that they wanted to do whatever it took to raise taxes and Boehner had told them his group didn't like it.
Did you notice how much taxes were raised with the completely illegally arrived at bill they are trying to convince Congress people to vote for. Some say that there is wording that will allow raises in taxes and the leaders of the House GOP says it isn't there.
At any rate, the Democrats didn't get any of those tax increases they wanted and did give up some expenditures in the nature of things. I don't care for Boehner's ways but he sure as hell won.
Really I thought you would have known that the Boehner walkout caused a whole different discussion that is now being settled with few of the things that Dems were sure they could weasel by.
The bolded words are just what Obama and crew want to happen.
Roy, please quit believing this stupidity. The first time I heard that argument I was shocked but amused because it was so ridiculous. I know the LimBeck machine has been repeating it so often that now it has become a truism, but it's just not true. You may think Democrats are misguided, but they're not trying to create dependents. They want a system where everyone prospers. Again, you may find their efforts misguided and oppose them... fine.
But can't we quit distrusting each other and thinking that the other side is hellbent on destroying America? That kind of rhetoric is false and destructive.
roysoldboy with fingers plugged in his ears: "Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah, I don't wanna hear or read your links. Blah blah blah blah. You libs are wrong! Blah blah blah blah."
The fact his behavior in this and other threads where I've encountered him, reflects the attitude above. To me, that's pretty ridiculous.
Have you read any of my words? I think not since all you want to discuss are your words without even mentioning any of mine. I think that you have just pressed up against a violation of the TOS with this post.
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.
