Ty Webb;559744 wrote:If you really think HCR is a clusterfuck...I fell bad for you

Anyone who doesn't think Obamacare is a cluster*%@ is retarded and is just sticking to the socialist ideolog.

I Wear Pants;559886 wrote:I don't think that all of the tax cuts should be extended. I think it's reasonable to extend them for those making less than say $1 million dollars a year. It keeps the cuts for those who need it (average person, most small business owners). But also saves us from adding more to the deficit that isn't going to help us (the "companies need these to start hiring" line doesn't work on me because it doesn't explain why there wasn't job growth in the near decade that the tax cuts have already existed).

The problem is there is no current "millionaire" tax bracket. Once you get to about $250k-$350k you are in the highest, no matter if you make $350k or $100 million, you pay the same percentage.

jmog;560508 wrote:The problem is there is no current "millionaire" tax bracket. Once you get to about $250k-$350k you are in the highest, no matter if you make $350k or $100 million, you pay the same percentage.

And the last thing we need is another tax bracket and extra layers of bureaucracy at the IRS.

Mr. 300;553538 wrote:And the taxpayers continue to keep their hard earned money.

Yes, for the 2% of the population that the Bush tax cuts actually affect. Obama on the other hand cut taxes last year and 98% of the population paid less in taxes for 2009 than for 2008.

krambman;564461 wrote:Yes, for the 2% of the population that the Bush tax cuts actually affect. Obama on the other hand cut taxes last year and 98% of the population paid less in taxes for 2009 than for 2008.

Bush lowered the marginal rate for every bracket. Obama issued a 2 year tax credit, not a tax cut.

fish82;564480 wrote:Bush lowered the marginal rate for every bracket. Obama issued a 2 year tax credit, not a tax cut.

Why is it the case that only one variable in the formula for tax liability that lowers overall tax liability counts as a cut?

One definition of the word "cut" is: "to lower, reduce, diminish or curtail."

Cecil Newton who was allegedly able to expand his small trucking business because of money from Auburn boosters, under the porkulus package, as one example, would have been able to immediately deduct up to $500,000 in FMV of his capital expenditures immediately last year as expenses; up from $200,000 pre-pork package; lowering, reducing and curtailing his tax liability for that year.

By definition of the word "cut"; BHO's changes in the internal revenue code created "cuts" in tax liability.

Conservatives are like Dave Chappelle when he was faced with evidence of R. Kelly in the sex tape. I need 3 forms of I.D. and his grandma.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/06/obama-proposes-payroll-tax-reduction-deal-taking-shape-bush-tax-cuts/

To those that love compromise, tonight's news should make you overjoyed. Supply-siders are happy to see tax rates stay the same along with a 2% payroll tax "stimulus". Progressives are happy that unemployed don't have to get off the hammock for 13 more months.

Hey look at that, bipartisanship. Compromise.
Now, do that to the real problems.

BGFalcons82;590676 wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/06/obama-proposes-payroll-tax-reduction-deal-taking-shape-bush-tax-cuts/

To those that love compromise, tonight's news should make you overjoyed. Supply-siders are happy to see tax rates stay the same along with a 2% payroll tax "stimulus". Progressives are happy that unemployed don't have to get off the hammock for 13 more months.

Wow, 99 weeks plus another 13 months. At what point in time does this stop being unemployment and move into the welfare category?

tk421;590856 wrote:Wow, 99 weeks plus another 13 months. At what point in time does this stop being unemployment and move into the welfare category?

In other times, I would agree.
But, some people that are still umemployed are pretty damn talented. It is just there is too much supply.

I would highlight that people that would apply for extensions would have to meet certain criteria to ensure that they are not abusing the system.

tk421;590856 wrote:Wow, 99 weeks plus another 13 months. At what point in time does this stop being unemployment and move into the welfare category?

After 6 months it is Wefare imo. I don't care if they can make more on unemployment, they should be forced to go find jobs at Walmart, McDonalds, whatever. Sending out resumes sitting at home isn't going to cut it. I'd even be ok with them having to work, and the gov. pay the difference between the job they have and what the unemployment benefit would be. Getting something for nothing is getting ridiculous in this country. I have a buddy who didn't get fired, just didn't re-up for the military and got unemployment from July 09 to now, and will be running out in December. Now I feel since he was serving our country that it isn't that big of a deal, but how can people get gov. money for this long?

tk421;590856 wrote:Wow, 99 weeks plus another 13 months. At what point in time does this stop being unemployment and move into the welfare category?

I think the limit is still 99 weeks. The issue was the expiration of benefits for those between 26 and 99 weeks.

iclfan2;591052 wrote:After 6 months it is Wefare imo. I don't care if they can make more on unemployment, they should be forced to go find jobs at Walmart, McDonalds, whatever. Sending out resumes sitting at home isn't going to cut it. I'd even be ok with them having to work, and the gov. pay the difference between the job they have and what the unemployment benefit would be. Getting something for nothing is getting ridiculous in this country. I have a buddy who didn't get fired, just didn't re-up for the military and got unemployment from July 09 to now, and will be running out in December. Now I feel since he was serving our country that it isn't that big of a deal, but how can people get gov. money for this long?

Thing is if someone who say has a Masters and was in Real Estate, McDs or Walmart probably won't hire them as they are overqualified and will instead hire someone who is less qualified than that. I've known people to where that has happened.

It is tough when you reach a certain level of education or professionalism in that it is nearly impossible to go back down to get hired somewhere. I see what you are saying and largely agree, but it is more complex than that though.

The decision by BHO last night to extend the current tax rates for all in exchange for extending unemployment benefits has the extreme elements on the left and the right with their panties in a wad. The extreme lefties are complaining that BHO caved on his campaign promise not to give tax breaks for the rich while the extremes on the right complain that extending unemployment without a way to pay for it adds to the deficit.

In the end, IMO, the rebublicrats make out better politically with this compromise and are set up to make more gains and even the presidency in 2012. BHO takes it on the chin with his base beginning to fall away much like Bush Sr. reneging on his "Read my lips, no new taxes" pledge, (and there's even a mentioning of possible primary challenges to BHO in 2012). Likewise, with the unemployment benefits being extended, there is the very real possibility that unemployment will remain hovering around 10% and voters may likely be as pissed at BHO and his cronies in Congress in 2012 as they were in 2010. It could be another tsunami in the making in 2012 for the repubs.

Buying votes in Washington has to stop. While I think unemployment benefits are necessary but perhaps too generous (they really aren't "generous" by any stretch, but people who've been on it for 3 years need to be receiving less). Just another side note on that - people have the mentality that this is where your home is and where you're raising your family - people need to accept that there are jobs out there but they may need to move across country for them. I can only imagine the whining, but tough shit.

If I'm reading the tea leaves at this point, I expect Hillary to be running for the Dems in 2012. If they foresee Obama losing that election (and they probably should), I don't expect them to sit back with Hillary on the sidelines who might be capable of winning it.

gut;591333 wrote: If I'm reading the tea leaves at this point, I expect Hillary to be running for the Dems in 2012. If they foresee Obama losing that election (and they probably should), I don't expect them to sit back with Hillary on the sidelines who might be capable of winning it.

No, she is not.

Apple;591168 wrote:The decision by BHO last night to extend the current tax rates for all in exchange for extending unemployment benefits has the extreme elements on the left and the right with their panties in a wad. The extreme lefties are complaining that BHO caved on his campaign promise not to give tax breaks for the rich while the extremes on the right complain that extending unemployment without a way to pay for it adds to the deficit.

In the end, IMO, the rebublicrats make out better politically with this compromise and are set up to make more gains and even the presidency in 2012. BHO takes it on the chin with his base beginning to fall away much like Bush Sr. reneging on his "Read my lips, no new taxes" pledge, (and there's even a mentioning of possible primary challenges to BHO in 2012). Likewise, with the unemployment benefits being extended, there is the very real possibility that unemployment will remain hovering around 10% and voters may likely be as pissed at BHO and his cronies in Congress in 2012 as they were in 2010. It could be another tsunami in the making in 2012 for the repubs.

Unemployment isn't going down anytime soon. It is going to stay in this area for a while.
Still any policy that has both extremes angry to me is the right policy.

The idea of compromise to get two things done (tax cuts which needed extended and unemployment, which did as well) was a breath of fresh air to me.

The President is going to speak at a news conference any moment now:
http://www.politico.com/livestream/

ptown_trojans_1;591346 wrote:No, she is not.

I don't buy the argument that she has more power and influence in her current position or that her ambition to be the first woman POTUS has faded in the slightest.

Politically, she will float the idea that she has no interest in running against Obama, but privately I do not expect the Dems to fold that hand when it becomes clear Obama is going to lose the White House. She may be the good team player and say the right things publicly, but I don't buy for one second that she's being the least bit sincere. If the opportunity is there in 2012 she will pounce on it.

gut;591362 wrote:I don't buy the argument that she has more power and influence in her current position or that her ambition to be the first woman POTUS has faded in the slightest.

Politically, she will float the idea that she has no interest in running against Obama, but privately I do not expect the Dems to fold that hand when it becomes clear Obama is going to lose the White House. She may be the good team player and say the right things publicly, but I don't buy for one second that she's being the least bit sincere. If the opportunity is there in 2012 she will pounce on it.

Yeah, I don't buy that. It makes no sense as it means she has been lying for about 2 years.

ptown_trojans_1;591366 wrote:Yeah, I don't buy that. It makes no sense as it means she has been lying for about 2 years.

Not fair. She's been lying far longer than that.

ptown_trojans_1;591366 wrote:Yeah, I don't buy that. It makes no sense as it means she has been lying for about 2 years.

What do you expect her to say? Yes, I intend to run against Obama in 2012? Don't be stupid. Only a fool believes that if the Democratic leadership comes to her in 2012 and says "we need you to run or we lose the White House" that she won't fall over herself to say yes. The ONLY reason she would say no is if she believes the damage done by Obama would be too great to overcome.

Really, your premise is based on "it makes no sense because she's lying for about 2 years"?!? First off, it's what politicians do. Second, it's easily dodged when she says "I changed my mind or my party convinced me they need me".

ptown_trojans_1;591366 wrote:Yeah, I don't buy that. It makes no sense as it means she has been lying for about 2 years.

She could easily play it as: "Honestly, I was tired and wanted to retire and spend time with my family and friends. But people were knocking on my door, desparate for my attention, needing me to be the leader they want... and I heard the call. From all of you! So, here I am!"

Or something to that effect lol! But, my point is, she can say she's tired and weary all she wants, nobody will scrutinize her past words vs. future "hero".

gut;591380 wrote:What do you expect her to say? Yes, I intend to run against Obama in 2012? Don't be stupid. Only a fool believes that if the Democratic leadership comes to her in 2012 and says "we need you to run or we lose the White House" that she won't fall over herself to say yes. The ONLY reason she would say no is if she believes the damage done by Obama would be too great to overcome.

Really, your premise is based on "it makes no sense because she's lying for about 2 years"?!? First off, it's what politicians do. Second, it's easily dodged when she says "I changed my mind or my party convinced me they need me".

gut - FWIW, I've been saying almost the exact same thing for the past 6 months or so. She has to play it out correctly political-wise. She has to be seen as the saviour of the Dems to rescue them from the clutches of Obama's inexperience. Her ambition motor is too strong to just fold it up and quit. It's not in her....or her husband. She has to be seen as a positive choice to take over for BHO and today, it's just not the right time. I agree with you that is coming and she'll be "allowed" to change her mind.

Yeah, I get what all of you are saying, but the thing is no one of any influence or stature is supporting the idea. I've heard no one really throw it as a real option. It easy to say she would do that, but once you think about how it would happen it falls apart.
Maybe, behind the scenes dirty politics backdealing that no one sees, but not here in the DC policy world.

I mean the most credible (loose term here) rumor I've heard about Hilliary is once Gates retires next year, she will replace him as SECDEF and I'm not sold on that.

I guess also, I can't foresee the Democratic base throwing aside their sitting President for another person. It hasn't happened really since 1980 (Ted Kennedy,Carter) and even that failed. Plus, there is the awkward, she would have to leave the State Department in 2011 to gear up for a 2012 run, leaving the President with no SECSTATE pretty much. I doubt she would do that.

Pretty much, I would start to take the rumor seriously if she resigns from STATE next year. Only then can I foresee that situation.