majorspark;826214 wrote:There are a lot of big government republicans. Sometimes when a solid conservative challenges one in a republican primary, the conservative gets labeled as a wing nut dullard who will be unelectable in the general election. So conservative are told to hold their noses and vote for the electable statesman. If the do not the left wing loon democrat will surely win the general election and heap horrible draconian new confiscatory laws.



States can do more than the feds, but not anything. States have their own constitutions that govern what they can and can't do. So not every law is acceptable. Some state laws are stupid. I am mostly concerned with the size of the governments that rule over my affairs.

What would you propose happen to these big government overlords in Illinois? Should someone run out and cry for even bigger government involvement and get an injunction from a federal judge forbidding enactment of the law pending federal judicial review? Or maybe you want the federal supreme court to find something in our living breathing constitution that nullifies the law?

This law seems to me to be a waste of the taxpayers resources and the creation of another useless bureaucracy. But I don't pay taxes to the state of Illinois. If they feel this is a good allocation of their resources, go ahead.

Footwedge;826002 wrote:I used the term percentage in my original post. No disengeneosity there at all. But your response is oh so typical. Twist the context as to what is said in order to bolster a very flimsy position.

Were you around whenever the spending craze began? Well...I was.

As for total dollars....well that title belongs to W.....in a landslide.

I Wear Pants;826363 wrote:It isn't a damned tax increase. It's closing loopholes (or if you want to call it breaks written in the tax code specifically for big business).

I Wear Pants;826363 wrote:So you'd rather the Republicans let us default then? Them taking this deal is compromise, not bending over.

I Wear Pants;826367 wrote:That's what I mean, you don't care if there's an incredibly stupid or unjust or whatever law at the state level because the people must have wanted it. But that's not always true. Much like this law, I'm willing to bet there was no one clamoring for it. At all.

I Wear Pants;826367 wrote:I don't want some injunction or something. I'd just like these people to not get elected again or to stop making these types of bills. Or their governor to grow some balls and veto it for being fucking worthless.

I Wear Pants;826418 wrote:Yes, some corporate and people's taxes would increase. But it is not a rate increase is the point most are saying.

And again, it's for a small subset of people/businesses and it shows that the Republicans think that lower taxes are always better even when facing default.

It's especially stupid when the Dems are agreeing to cuts.

You keep saying things like "kicking the can down the road" which makes it sound as if you don't approve of raising the limit and would rather default. Which would be dumb.

I Wear Pants;826418 wrote:Yes, some corporate and people's taxes would increase. But it is not a rate increase is the point most are saying.

coyotes22;826437 wrote:If they get rid of the mortgage deduction "loophole", and the earned income credit "loophole",,,,,,, That effects more than a small amount, and most of that amount would be the middle/low income class,,,, ME. I only make 30k a year, and both those "loophole" would cause my taxes to most def "go up"!!

gut;826443 wrote:But businesses and most people with a clue only look at their effective rate. Spin and play semantics all you want, it's clearly a tax increase because the effective tax rate goes up. And while it's typical political propaganda to say just up taxes on corporations because they're faceless and "make too much money", the reality is America has among the highest corporate tax rates and that's uncompetitive. People will bring up GE and what not, but a lot of these tax breaks are outgrowths of a progressive/social meddling govt that uses the tax code to redistribute wealth (i.e. a tax break for building a factory in Iowa or green initiatives, or whatever).

And the Dems can't even agree to a budget, so many question the legitimacy of these supposed cuts. And of course, cutting one thing doesn't prevent them from increasing something else. I'm not opposed to higher taxes, I just see it as, yes, kicking the can down the road because we have a spending problem much much more than a revenue problem.

While the House has passed a serious, credible budget that tackles this debt crisis head-on, 800 days — and $7.3 trillion dollars — have come and gone since the Democrat-led Senate has adopted a budget. Not only is a budget a concrete fiscal plan, but it expresses a philosophy of governing. Democrats’ refusal to pass a budget — and refusal to put their big-government economic theories on paper — is of extraordinary significance. Making matters worse, the only budget submitted by the president is a fundamentally unserious plan that doubles our debt and speeds us to economic decline.

gut;826443 wrote:But businesses and most people with a clue only look at their effective rate. Spin and play semantics all you want, it's clearly a tax increase because the effective tax rate goes up. And while it's typical political propaganda to say just up taxes on corporations because they're faceless and "make too much money", the reality is America has among the highest corporate tax rates and that's uncompetitive. People will bring up GE and what not, but a lot of these tax breaks are outgrowths of a progressive/social meddling govt that uses the tax code to redistribute wealth (i.e. a tax break for building a factory in Iowa or green initiatives, or whatever).

And the Dems can't even agree to a budget, so many question the legitimacy of these supposed cuts. And of course, cutting one thing doesn't prevent them from increasing something else. I'm not opposed to higher taxes, I just see it as, yes, kicking the can down the road because we have a spending problem much much more than a revenue problem.

majorspark;826417 wrote:See gut's post. I was about to post nearly the same thing in response. Its a tax increase.



I was just reassuring Ptown that he did not have to worry about the republicans. Its not worth defaulting over miniscule change in the scope of our economic situation. We will keep kicking the can down the road until we can't do it anymore.

Writerbuckeye;826524 wrote:How dare those EEEEEVIL corporations make money. HOW DARE THEY!

How dare they bring in profits for the tens of millions of shareholders who have money invested in them, in stocks, bonds, 401 Ks, and all kinds of other savings and retirement plans.

Let's just tax the living hell out of them since they aren't "reinvesting" in America, anyway. What difference does it make if the value of all those holdings goes to ****, right? It doesn't hurt any REAL people.

SMH

ptown_trojans_1;826528 wrote:Is it really taxing the hell out of them? Really? No, it is shifting the tax rate a miniscule amount in the long run. In turn, the D's are offering cuts in the budget and concessions to further cuts down the road.

It's not that difficult. Accept the loophole/ tax increase if you want to call it and accept the budget decrease in order to save us from credit default.
I'm all for companies making money, but honestly if we do not make a deal that does involve taxes, all those companies will be hurting even more from the default.

fish82;826378 wrote:My position is flimsy? Puleeaze. :rolleyes:

W presided over the addition of 2.5 Trillion to the debt. Obama will beat that this year, and double it before his first term is up. He's added almost twice as much debt in 2 years than Reagan did in 8.

You know I was around when the "spending craze" began...which makes it that much easier to call you on your pseudo-obsession with all things Reagan.

Footwedge;826531 wrote:EDIT....When Bush took office, the national debt was 5.8 trillion. When he left, the N. D. was 10.3 trillion. Fuzzy...fuzzy math on your part.

Footwedge;826531 wrote:Your numbers are absolutely false. Barry's first budget was 3.6 trillion. Bush's last budget was 3.1 trillion....a budget that did not even include the war costs of an additional 100 billion....which Pinnochio kept off the books. Look it up.


EDIT....When Bush took office, the national debt was 5.8 trillion. When he left, the N. D. was 10.3 trillion. Fuzzy...fuzzy math on your part.

ptown_trojans_1;826528 wrote:It's not that difficult. Accept the loophole/ tax increase if you want to call it and accept the budget decrease in order to save us from credit default.
I'm all for companies making money, but honestly if we do not make a deal that does involve taxes, all those companies will be hurting even more from the default.

coyotes22;826530 wrote:If thats what they (D's) want to do, then why didnt they do it 800 days ago, when they should have been working on the budget?

Now they wait till the (R's) have some control, and say, "well we are trying to work a budget, but the big mean rich R's wont meet us in the middle". Dirty politics at its finest.

BGFalcons82;826541 wrote:Isn't comparing 8 years vs. 2.5 years a little incongruous? How can you do that and make a valid point? You should take a 2 shot penalty for factual manipulation.

Writerbuckeye;826529 wrote:If the D's were offering any real concessions and not just playing with the numbers -- I think you'd see more movement. They aren't.

coyotes22;826530 wrote:If thats what they (D's) want to do, then why didnt they do it 800 days ago, when they should have been working on the budget?

Now they wait till the (R's) have some control, and say, "well we are trying to work a budget, but the big mean rich R's wont meet us in the middle". Dirty politics at its finest.

BGFalcons82;826557 wrote:Why is it so damn important to get tax increases right now? Why would ANYONE want to raise taxes in our 9.2% unemployed world? Why is getting $400 billion in tax hikes vs. a supposed $4 trillion in spending "cuts" so damn important?

It's important because the tax increases WILL COMMENCE as soon as possible. The spending "cuts" include "cuts" made 10 ****ing years from now. Really? 10 years from now? How in the hell can ANY Congress state with any degree of certainty what the Congress 10 years from now will do...or 8 years....or 6 years...or....you get the point. They will die for the tax hike for "cuts" trade because they will NEVER MAKE ANOTHER DAMN "CUT". Been there in the 80's with Reagan/O'Neill. Been there with Bush 41/Read my lips pledge. Been there with Clinton/Gingrich. Every time, tax hikes go into effect and spending "cuts" NEVER COME INTO FRUITION. Never.

Just like Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown...promising she won't pull it away "this time". Then here the dumbass comes and...voila...she pulls it away again and laughs at him as she will never let him kick it.