ha ha, welcome to the club.

Son...I think I was a 'redophile before you were born!

HitsRus;480803 wrote:Son...I think I was a 'redophile before you were born!

Semantics.

HitsRus;479646 wrote:Yes...incidentally I'm a 'redophile' too

Me too...married one!

Back to the thread....

Today, Boehner announces that he is all for extending tax cuts. While he, and many Democrats, want to extend the cuts to everyone including the evil rich, he will agree to any extensions Obama/Reid/Pelosi propose. Interestingly, the words coming out of their mouths say they are providing a tax CUT, not a tax rate EXTENSION. Words mean things and these elitists think Americans are stoooooopid.

I also find it quite interesting that "big oil man, wealthy-loving Bush", who is excoriated by every liberal and Democrat out there to this day, is now having his policy of reduced tax-rates extended by those that hated the act to begin with.

Here's a question the Democrats need to answer: In the midst of high unemployment that will extend for as long as the President's own economists can predict (see Goolsby today), how will raising taxes on the people and corporations that provide jobs to the unemployed provide more opportunities to reduce the unemployment rate? In other words, how will raising taxes provide jobs, economic growth, and a better environment for business?

Fire away...

BGFalcons82;481589 wrote:Back to the thread....

Today, Boehner announces that he is all for extending tax cuts. While he, and many Democrats, want to extend the cuts to everyone including the evil rich, he will agree to any extensions Obama/Reid/Pelosi propose. Interestingly, the words coming out of their mouths say they are providing a tax CUT, not a tax rate EXTENSION. Words mean things and these elitists think Americans are stoooooopid.

I also find it quite interesting that "big oil man, wealthy-loving Bush", who is excoriated by every liberal and Democrat out there to this day, is now having his policy of reduced tax-rates extended by those that hated the act to begin with.

Here's a question the Democrats need to answer: In the midst of high unemployment that will extend for as long as the President's own economists can predict (see Goolsby today), how will raising taxes on the people and corporations that provide jobs to the unemployed provide more opportunities to reduce the unemployment rate? In other words, how will raising taxes provide jobs, economic growth, and a better environment for business?

Fire away...

The American people ARE stupid. They keep electing moron after moron to office, don't they? These are the same American people who vote more for American Idol than an election. If it's not told to them during whatever news program they watch, the American people don't know about it, don't care about it, and don't have an opinion about it.

Also, good luck with your question. I asked the same thing earlier, I guess I must be too stupid to understand the reasoning behind this idea from the Democrats. Also, why do they constantly call the rich "evil" when they themselves are rich? Are rich Republican businessmen different from rich Democratic politicians?

tk421;481644 wrote:The American people ARE stupid. They keep electing moron after moron to office, don't they? These are the same American people who vote more for American Idol than an election. If it's not told to them during whatever news program they watch, the American people don't know about it, don't care about it, and don't have an opinion about it.

In past years, I would agree with you. However, with the internet and the disdain for where our country is heading by the conservative pundits, people are more educated about the politics and direction of the USA. It' really no wonder the leftists in charge want to shut it down along with those that publicly disagree with them.

The leftists want to shut the internet down?

tk421;481644 wrote:Also, good luck with your question. I asked the same thing earlier, I guess I must be too stupid to understand the reasoning behind this idea from the Democrats. Also, why do they constantly call the rich "evil" when they themselves are rich? Are rich Republican businessmen different from rich Democratic politicians?

Yeah, as I typed it, I remembered I wasn't the first one to type it. Thanks for the correction.

The only difference is now Obama and his administration is on record as being for raising taxes on the job creators. Oh wait....I forgot....the government is the ones providing jobs since he took office. My bad.

Regarding whom is rich...Democrats care more about the average American, therefore they pass the compassion bar and they can be forgiven. Evil rich Republicans, who give more to charities than their counterparts, are in bed with big oil...or big pharma...or big health care...or big energy. You get the picture.

I Wear Pants;481657 wrote:The leftists want to shut the internet down?

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=150185
http://americanphoenix.net/2009/08/30/the-revolution-is-already-underway-obamas-communications-czar/
http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/08/26/obamas-new-fcc-diversity-chief-believes-government-should-control-all-media/

Maybe I mis-typed...they want to control it, and in times of "crisis", be able to shut it down for "national security purposes"... http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/on-net-neutrality-regulation-suppose-free-press-called-a-crisis-and-nobody-noticed/

Question: who gets to define when we have a crisis? You know, a good crisis shouldn't go to waste.

Net Neutrality is a good thing not a bad thing.

ACTA is the thing that we need to worry about. Net Neutrality good. ACTA bad.

https://www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality

BGFalcons82;481589 wrote:Back to the thread....

Today, Boehner announces that he is all for extending tax cuts. While he, and many Democrats, want to extend the cuts to everyone including the evil rich, he will agree to any extensions Obama/Reid/Pelosi propose. Interestingly, the words coming out of their mouths say they are providing a tax CUT, not a tax rate EXTENSION. Words mean things and these elitists think Americans are stoooooopid.

I also find it quite interesting that "big oil man, wealthy-loving Bush", who is excoriated by every liberal and Democrat out there to this day, is now having his policy of reduced tax-rates extended by those that hated the act to begin with.

Here's a question the Democrats need to answer: In the midst of high unemployment that will extend for as long as the President's own economists can predict (see Goolsby today), how will raising taxes on the people and corporations that provide jobs to the unemployed provide more opportunities to reduce the unemployment rate? In other words, how will raising taxes provide jobs, economic growth, and a better environment for business?

Fire away...

"Tax Cuts are good politics but not a good stimulus"

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/business/economy/11tax.html

I Wear Pants;481691 wrote:Net Neutrality is a good thing not a bad thing.

ACTA is the thing that we need to worry about. Net Neutrality good. ACTA bad.

https://www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality

ACTA is not defined on your posted link. Can you describe it?

I'm not sure I completely understand the Net Neutrality argument. I will back the side that is for free speech, no government interference, no internet taxes, and equal opportunity for all providers. It is here for everyone and should remain as such. If phone companies and internet providers want to have a faster...more streamlined version, then fine...come up with their own. If free speech is regulated, then we are done with the ideals this country was based upon.

BoatShoes;481693 wrote:"Tax Cuts are good politics but not a good stimulus"

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/business/economy/11tax.html

Ah yes...class warfare works as good politics. Tax "the man" and you will feel better about your own life, eh. Confiscate some of "the man's" money and redistribute it to those that are somehow entitled to it is good politics. Well...it worked in 2008, so why not trot it out again? Let's see how that works on November 2nd.

BGFalcons82;481720 wrote:Ah yes...class warfare works as good politics. Tax "the man" and you will feel better about your own life, eh. Confiscate some of "the man's" money and redistribute it to those that are somehow entitled to it is good politics. Well...it worked in 2008, so why not trot it out again? Let's see how that works on November 2nd.

It's difficult to have a message board convo with you...I'm not sure how any of what you wrote is relevant to your question which I attempted answer. In fact, it seems to me that "tax the man" is not good politics in America. You asked why allowing the the cuts to expire for the top 2% would not hurt job growth and I posted an article that attempts to answer that question.

BGFalcons82;481707 wrote:ACTA is not defined on your posted link. Can you describe it?

I'm not sure I completely understand the Net Neutrality argument. I will back the side that is for free speech, no government interference, no internet taxes, and equal opportunity for all providers. It is here for everyone and should remain as such. If phone companies and internet providers want to have a faster...more streamlined version, then fine...come up with their own. If free speech is regulated, then we are done with the ideals this country was based upon.

That policy is Net Neutrality. It is what has been in place and what makes the internet great.

ACTA- Sorry for not posting a link earlier. http://www.eff.org/issues/acta

BoatShoes;481758 wrote:It's difficult to have a message board convo with you...I'm not sure how any of what you wrote is relevant to your question which I attempted answer. In fact, it seems to me that "tax the man" is not good politics in America. You asked why allowing the the cuts to expire for the top 2% would not hurt job growth and I posted an article that attempts to answer that question.

Sorry for my obstinence, but I passionately disagree with Keynesian theory and the New York Times espouses it daily. I read your attached article earlier today. Yes, the Times says, in essence, that confiscating money from future generations and giving it to people today will spur economic growth more than allowing people to keep more of what they earn. I read this garbage all the time and I disagree 100%. The article also says that the rich will only "save the money they get from taxes." Well...savings is INVESTING! Doh! I know the Obama gang has co-opted the word, "investment", to mean a government program that is necessary, but that's not what it is. Our national savings rate has been in the dumper for decades and part of recovery is actually paying for things needed, not just borrowing even MORE from the future...from our children...from our grandchildren...and from the Chinese. Maybe...just maybe...if Freddic Mac and Fannie Mae had kept their 5% downpayment rules in order, we would not have had the housing bubble and subsequent burst from people that were unqualified for their loans to begin with. But I digress.

When I used, "you", I meant it in the group sense, not in the BoatShoes sense. Sorry for the perceived slight....I'll do better next time.

BGFalcons82;481798 wrote:Sorry for my obstinence, but I passionately disagree with Keynesian theory and the New York Times espouses it daily. I read your attached article earlier today. Yes, the Times says, in essence, that confiscating money from future generations and giving it to people today will spur economic growth more than allowing people to keep more of what they earn. I read this garbage all the time and I disagree 100%.

You do understand that Keynesian economics enabled the US to win WWII, correct? Secondly, how can you argue the evils of accrued debt....and yet be 100% against death taxes from those with huge estates? That doesn'tpass any smell test...no matter how you spin it.

Our national debt consists of many factors. Lower tax revenues are part of that equation.

The article also says that the rich will only "save the money they get from taxes." Well...savings is INVESTING! Doh! I know the Obama gang has co-opted the word, "investment", to mean a government program that is necessary, but that's not what it is. Our national savings rate has been in the dumper for decades and part of recovery is actually paying for things needed, not just borrowing even MORE from the future...from our children...from our grandchildren...and from the Chinese. Maybe...just maybe...if Freddic Mac and Fannie Mae had kept their 5% downpayment rules in order, we would not have had the housing bubble and subsequent burst from people that were unqualified for their loans to begin with. But I digress.

Freddie and Fannie were just one cog in the wheel that led to the housing bubble. There were plenty of other factors. You should digress. When Limbaugh made the outrageous statement that the housing bubble was 100% the fault of F 7 F, anyone with a third of a brain should have turned that knucklehead off the radio dial forever. He's a lying fraud...and is the primary reason that the Democrats own the House, Senate, and the White House.

BGFalcons82;481589 wrote:Back to the thread....

Today, Boehner announces that he is all for extending tax cuts. While he, and many Democrats, want to extend the cuts to everyone including the evil rich, he will agree to any extensions Obama/Reid/Pelosi propose. Interestingly, the words coming out of their mouths say they are providing a tax CUT, not a tax rate EXTENSION. Words mean things and these elitists think Americans are stoooooopid.

I also find it quite interesting that "big oil man, wealthy-loving Bush", who is excoriated by every liberal and Democrat out there to this day, is now having his policy of reduced tax-rates extended by those that hated the act to begin with.

Here's a question the Democrats need to answer: In the midst of high unemployment that will extend for as long as the President's own economists can predict (see Goolsby today), how will raising taxes on the people and corporations that provide jobs to the unemployed provide more opportunities to reduce the unemployment rate? In other words, how will raising taxes provide jobs, economic growth, and a better environment for business?

Fire away...

Not a democrat...but i will answer. The top 2% of income earners do not use their dollars to hire the unemployed. Haven't done so for years. They do not have the interest of Americans at heart, but the interest of their bottom lines. That is why they send their American dollars in investing in Chinese, Indian, Mexican, Vietnamese, and Laosian companies in order to maximimize their profits.

Footwedge;481852 wrote:Not a democrat...but i will answer. The top 2% of income earners do not use their dollars to hire the unemployed. Haven't done so for years. They do not have the interest of Americans at heart, but the interest of their bottom lines. That is why they send their American dollars in investing in Chinese, Indian, Mexican, Vietnamese, and Laosian companies in order to maximimize their profits.

If this is true, then how does this administration get people to start hiring again? If the top earners aren't hiring anyone, and the others aren't hiring anyone, how does this help anything for the economy? All I see is it will be more tax money for the administration to waste.

tk421;481870 wrote:If this is true, then how does this administration get people to start hiring again? If the top earners aren't hiring anyone, and the others aren't hiring anyone, how does this help anything for the economy? All I see is it will be more tax money for the administration to waste.

The administration can't do anything to get people to "hire again". If we want to see an American economic renaissance
, then a myriad of issues need to be addressed. I agree with authors Geunther Steingart and Paul Craig Roberts ideas on the issue.

Footwedge;481831 wrote:You do understand that Keynesian economics enabled the US to win WWII, correct?

Let me make sure I understand you. Are you advocating another world war so that Keynesian economic theores will be proven correct? I don't think you are, but hey, I've read enough craziness on here before.

Or are you saying that since it worked when we built a war machine capable of defeating the Axis Powers, we should continue down that same path again? If so, whom is the world power we are trying to overthrow today? During the Big One, we had to build machines capable of winning and the only way to do that was to borrow as much as we could from the future to win the war. How will borrowing trillions of dollars now help us win our war against an unnamed opponent?

Or are we still fighting the war on poverty? Remember that one? If it's over....who won?...because I can't tell.

Footwedge;481831 wrote:Secondly, how can you argue the evils of accrued debt....and yet be 100% against death taxes from those with huge estates? That doesn'tpass any smell test...no matter how you spin it. Our national debt consists of many factors. Lower tax revenues are part of that equation.

You are making a connection that does not exist. The Death Tax is an insidious immoral theft of already-taxed money. Taxing money that has already been taxed is theft, not a revenue stream...but we've beat that up enough haven't we? We have an out of control national debt because of trillion dollars stimulus plans, TARP bailouts, Wall Street bailouts, union payoffs, ObamaKare, etc. etc. etc. The country is out of control financially because of spending, not because of not enough revenue.

I have a follow-up for you....If inflation is at 3% and population growth is 1%, then why does the government feel obligated to increase spending by over 10%?

Most people are glossing over or ignoring somethings, like the fact that most companies now have adjusted or are adjusting to lower workforces, meaning that they will not need to hire more people on, or have found other ways to offset the loss of people over the last two years. Those jobs are not coming back, no matter what the tax situation is.

Another thing is most companies are now off shore, and the blue collar work is not coming back to the U.S. mainland, not in this 21st century world. White collar and technology, innovative jobs are the future.

The problem is innovation, and establishing a model for higher innovation. We have innovators, it is just they are lost in the system and there is no real method to get them known and hiring tons of people.

The Bush taxes are small potatoes compared to the innovation problem.

"The problem is innovation, and establishing a model for higher innovation. We have innovators, it is just they are lost in the system and there is no real method to get them known and hiring tons of people. "

That is likely accurate, but one of the worst policies this country has ever produced is the policy of discouraging hiring by private businesses. Social security is a topic on another thread, but it is obviously a HUGH cost in hiring someone. Business licenses, taxes, employment regulations are also a huge cost - one damn near needs a labor lawyer to explain what disclosures you need to make available for your employees. For the 1,456,984th time, even during the best of times, it is expensive to hire an employee. These are far from the best of times, yet it is as expensive as ever to hire folks. Without significant reform, we could be entering a regime where young people will be indepedent contractors/temp workers during the early years of their careers, yet their tax money will be used for bailing out unfunded pensions of the baby boomers.