ptown_trojans_1;545635 wrote:New Speaker Boehner with an Op-ed in the WSJ this morning on his plan for moving forward. Gotta say, I like it so far.
Points:
No earmarks.
Let Americans read bills before they are brought to a vote
No more "comprehensive" bills
No more bills written behind closed doors in the speaker's office

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703805704575594280015549088.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

That's great stuff. Seriously, even if you disagree with the ideology of a Boehner or DeMint, it's hard to refute what he wrote there.

The speaker of the House, like all members of Congress, is a servant of the American people. The individual entrusted with that high honor and responsibility should act accordingly. A speaker's mission should not be to consolidate power in the speaker's office, but rather to ensure that elected officials uphold their oath to defend the Constitution and the American people we serve. If a speaker carries out that mission successfully, the result should be legislation that better reflects the considerable challenges we face as a nation.

The American people deserve a majority in Congress that listens to the people, focuses on their priorities and honors their demands for smaller, more accountable government. Accountability starts at the top, in the office of the speaker.

Can you say "Nancy Pelosi"?

Good stuff from Jim DeMint giving advice to new Senators:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704141104575588612828579920.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

The tax cut fight has just taken another interesting turn.

Obama has expressed a willingness to make all middle class tax cuts permanent, and give a maybe 2 year extension to the tax cuts for the rich (which he had previously said was off the table).

Republicans though have just come out and said they will not allow for the 2 to be decoupled, because politically it would be impossible in 2 years to get the public to agree to re-extend tax cuts for the top 2% if the tax cuts for the bottom 98% weren't at risk of going up as well.

This will be the first sign of whether compromise is possible because Obama's starting position is make permanent the bottom 98% and let the top 2% expire. Republicans want all permanent. Compromise would entail both sides backing off their ideal position, but I don't see how that is going to happen.

The sad part is that both sides agree on the necessity of making permanent the tax cuts for the bottom 98%, but because compromise of any kind on the top 2% seems impossible for either side really we can't do anything at all. It is a messed up system that everyone has to be caught in the cross-hairs because they can't agree over a very small percentage of the population.

jhay78;545767 wrote:Can you say "Nancy Pelosi"?

Good stuff from Jim DeMint giving advice to new Senators:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704141104575588612828579920.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

In all seriousness, we must realize an important factor. I truly believe that "most" of the dems in power the past two+ years were thinking they were doing a good thing. They heard the people saying that something needed to be done with the current situation concerning health insurance. They tried. But somewhere along the way, several things happened that blew up in their face:
- The right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing
- They purposely prohibited the republicans from actively being involved (they didn't want to share any glory)
- They cut each others throats in pursuit of said glory
- They purposely backdoored alot of junk
- They never comprehended the sum of the whole

And that's just the brief highlights.

Nancy Pelosi is the embodiment of every single thing that went wrong with the democrat party.
Hopefully from here on to forever, our congress will never put some fruitcake like her in that position of power ever again.

Iggy, I agree with you.

My PoV is that the top 2% should have just as many rights to be protected from thievery (governmental/otherwise) and you, I, or anybody else does.

The problem lies in the question: Just how much should be taken from the top 2% before it's just flat out morally, legally, and realistically wrong?
It's really easy for Congress to arbitrarily make those decisions when they literally only have to work 1 term and they're setup for life and whimsically vote theirselves pay raises. Same thing for a President. Work 1 term and is setup for life.
Neither Congress or a President has to adhere themselves to the same standards they vote to mandate on everybody else. For example: healthcare.

lol, this could probably end up in the "what would you cut from the budge" thread, cause there's a whole list of things that can be discussed with this.

Anyway, my point being, where is the line or where should it be drawn? How much is too much? How much is not enough?

CenterBHSFan;545868 wrote:Iggy, I agree with you.

My PoV is that the top 2% should have just as many rights to be protected from thievery (governmental/otherwise) and you, I, or anybody else does.

The problem lies in the question: Just how much should be taken from the top 2% before it's just flat out morally, legally, and realistically wrong?
It's really easy for Congress to arbitrarily make those decisions when they literally only have to work 1 term and they're setup for life and whimsically vote theirselves pay raises. Same thing for a President. Work 1 term and is setup for life.
Neither Congress or a President has to adhere themselves to the same standards they vote to mandate on everybody else. For example: healthcare.

lol, this could probably end up in the "what would you cut from the budge" thread, cause there's a whole list of things that can be discussed with this.

Anyway, my point being, where is the line or where should it be drawn? How much is too much? How much is not enough?[/QUOTE]

Which is the crux of the difference between the parties, in some ways. Republicans believe the money paid in taxes belong to the people who earned it...Democrats believe the government has a right to that money, especially if the person holding it is wealthy.

Jim Boehner might be a total douche of a human being, okay no he really is..

And now he is my alma mater's most famous alumni. Great.

Ten bucks says I get to listen to him at my graduation in May.

But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, along with other Senate leaders from both parties, say that earmarking is a constitutional right and senatorial privilege and show little interest in relinquishing the decades-long practice of inserting pet projects into appropriations bills.

So much for the ban on earmarks. McConnell has said that is not happening. At least the Tea Party crowd has gotten about 72 hours before the new leadership shares the bad news that we can expect more of the same and not the change they voted for.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44750.html#ixzz14RFNLxG0

Is anyone surprised? I can't believe people actually fall for this crap about politicians talking about "change". It's all bullshit.

IggyPride00;545958 wrote:So much for the ban on earmarks. McConnell has said that is not happening. At least the Tea Party crowd has gotten about 72 hours before the new leadership shares the bad news that we can expect more of the same and not the change they voted for.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44750.html#ixzz14RFNLxG0

I'm growing less fond of Mitch by the day.

IggyPride00;545958 wrote:So much for the ban on earmarks. McConnell has said that is not happening. At least the Tea Party crowd has gotten about 72 hours before the new leadership shares the bad news that we can expect more of the same and not the change they voted for.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44750.html#ixzz14RFNLxG0

The British didn't listen very well after the Tea Party. You know where that went.

Wow. I must say this is definitely a nice pick up for the republicans in South Dakota.

Politico is reporting that one of the compromises Democrats are thinking of offering on permanent extension of the tax cuts would be setting the threshold at $500,000 instead of $250,000, and maybe even as high as a million.

That would be kind of a game changer if true, because there are alot of people in this country in the HENRY group (high earner, not yet rich) that would get snared by $250 but when you get to $500 or even a Million a year you are talking about the truly wealthy.

If Obama offers the Republicans a permanent extension on earners up to say half a million and a year or 2 extension on those above that number (but would expire at some point), there is no way politically the Republicans could get away turning that down.

Doing that would drive a wedge into the party big time most likely and box them into a corner. They won't want to accept that deal, but on the flip side all of the good will and momentum from the election will evaporate if tax go up for everyone in the country because Republicans filibustered the tax cut bill because it included only a temporary extension of the cuts for those making over half a million instead of a permanent one.

Obama would then be able to make the case he is compromising by coming off the $250,000 number (thus sparing small businesses) he spent 2 years harping on, and that Republicans (if they turn him down) are being unreasonable and only interested in protecting the super wealthy at the expense of everyone.

If that is how he decides to play this out then it is clear he brought in some better political operatives this week after his drubbing because it would get him out of the hole he is in on the issue and put the ball in the Republicans court to decide how they want to proceed.

^^^I'd like to think that the Republicans will choose to agree on a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts but the exact income level of the cut-off would certainly be on the table for negotiation.

I'm still of the opinion that singling out the "truly wealthy" is a mistake because, like it or not, the wealthy are the jobs creators. The wealthy will simply cut their losses one way or another. One of those ways would be to freeze or cut hiring to offset the losses.

That being said you are correct. The Repubs are walking into a lose-lose scenario. While the liberal spin machine will scrutinize and demonize whatever decision the Repubs make, I think most sensible people will see it for what it is....a tough decision in tough economic times.

We have to start somewhere. I just hope the "R"s" have their own plan and will not allow the Democrats and the leftist media spin machine to dictate the agenda. The last time they did that the American electorate fired them too.

See what we just did there. Compromised.

"We don't think the tax cuts should stay for everyone" -Dems
"The tax cuts must stay for everyone" -Pubs
"Only for the under 250k" - Dems
"Everyone, cutoff isn't cut in stone" -Pubs
"500k okay?" Dems
"Okay" - Pubs

Will it happen that way? Probably not. Neither side is reasonable enough. They both get a +1 in my book if they are able to come to what appears to be a reasonable compromise and they can do it relatively quickly.

500K is still too low. Make it $750-1mil and I'm on board.

fish82;546802 wrote:500K is still too low. Make it $750-1mil and I'm on board.

Me too

IggyPride00;545958 wrote:So much for the ban on earmarks. McConnell has said that is not happening. At least the Tea Party crowd has gotten about 72 hours before the new leadership shares the bad news that we can expect more of the same and not the change they voted for.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44750.html#ixzz14RFNLxG0

Guys like that are why the Tea Party came into existence in the first place.

DeMint, whose guerrilla tactics have long been scoffed at by senior Senate Republicans, has for years pushed for an earmark moratorium. In the last Congress, the plan was resoundingly rejected, 29-71. Earlier this year, it lost by a 29-68 vote.

This year, DeMint thinks he’s got a better chance — bolstered by a crop of freshmen that vowed on the campaign trail to end the practice.

“Americans just elected numerous senators who pledged to end the earmark favor factory, and Republicans must make good on the promise to stop the wasteful spending,” said DeMint spokesman Wesley Denton.

Nearly all of the 13 new Republicans elected to the Senate have made varying levels of commitments to abolish the pet projects.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44750.html#ixzz14VXYMXOQ

The Senate is a mess- maybe 2012 can fix more of that.

jhay78;546819 wrote:Guys like that are why the Tea Party came into existence in the first place.

We have a winner!

believer;546291 wrote: I'm still of the opinion that singling out the "truly wealthy" is a mistake because, like it or not, the wealthy are the jobs creators.

That's an interesting theory but it's complete bull shit. Trickle down was introduced by RR. Where is your research to validate this claim?, wait I know FOX told you LOL!

Bigdogg;548452 wrote:That's an interesting theory but it's complete bull shit. Trickle down was introduced by RR. Where is your research to validate this claim?, wait I know FOX told you LOL!

And so did Olberdouche tell you on PMSNBC that welfare mothers create the jobs? No wait....I forgot. Big Government creates the jobs.

So you're telling me that the people with the money are NOT the jobs creators? Then can you enlighten me on who really does?

Talk about delusional bullshit.

fish82;546802 wrote:500K is still too low. Make it $750-1mil and I'm on board.

If you're pulling in $500k a year you're fucking wealthy.

I Wear Pants;548531 wrote:If you're pulling in $500k a year you're fucking wealthy.

So IWP....At what point, what income level, do we all agree that it's morally OK to punish those who have money for having money? Who are we to say it's OK for someone to earn $250,000 a year but if they go above that we are going to confiscate the difference and redistribute the "obscene wealth" to people the "wealthy" person doesn't even know?

Do I envy people who have wealth? Absolutely. Do I hate them for it? No. Do I think their money should be confiscated and given to me? Sounds nice but do I deserve it or have I earned it? No.

The tried and true class warfare game leftist like to play is self-defeating. We WANT the wealthy to be wealthy. Capitalism despite its own moral pitfalls has and will forevermore provide far, far more people with a decent way of life than confiscatory socialism ever hopes to achieve.

Who said confiscate the difference?

Who said hate?

You did. I'm simply not opposed to those that make a ton more than the average paying a bit more in taxes. Not anti-rich people. Just don't see a massive problem with wealthy being taxed more. Obviously it shouldn't be an obscene amount more.

We differ in our opinions on this obviously. From what I gather you believe that the rich should be taxed the same as someone pulling in $9,000 a year. This doesn't make much sense to me.

Just to make it clear, I don't hate the rich, don't want them to give up all/most of their money, and don't think they should be punished for working hard/being good at what they do/being born into good situations. I think that they could have a higher tax rate (not incredibly higher) than the rest of us and it wouldn't be an outrage. Some wealthy agree with me (Buffett, Gates, others) where as some disagree.

I Wear Pants;548703 wrote:We differ in our opinions on this obviously. From what I gather you believe that the rich should be taxed the same as someone pulling in $9,000 a year. This doesn't make much sense to me.

It doesn't make sense to me to punish the rich for being rich either. I'm all for a Flat Tax/Fair Tax (we all pay the same percentage regardless of income bracket) or eliminate the income tax altogether and go to a National Consumption Tax.

That makes more sense than a system that rewards people and even pays people to be in the lower brackets and punishes people for having the audacity of being successful and wealthy.

I get that a flat tax sounds ideal but it isn't actually fair. 10% of the income of someone making $20,000 a year is a bigger deal than 10% to someone making $200k or $2 million a year. It's proportionate sure but acting like it affect both equally isn't right.

A consumption tax could be interesting (I'm not versed in tax methodologies so I'm assuming that is one where you're only taxed for goods/services you buy).