David Brooks says it all; The Republican party has gone off the deep end
-
I Wear Pants
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.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.
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. -
fish82
My position is flimsy? Puleeaze. :rolleyes: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.
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.
-
gutWhat a silly game of semantics Washington is playing. If your effective tax rate goes up because a deduction is eliminated, how is that NOT a tax increase? In what universe is paying more taxes on the same income NOT a tax increase?
While we'reatit, let's eliminate the mortgage interest deduction, the deduction for dependents, he'll evn the personal standard deduction...everyone will be cool with that because it isn't a tax increase?!? -
majorspark
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).
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.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 PantsYes, 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. -
majorspark
Yes I am content to let people govern themselves. I don't want to stick my nose into other states and localities business over what I believe to be a stupid law and a waste of their money. Can't we all just get along? Enough people wanted it to get it through the Illinois state legislature and singed by the governor. If the law was a great injustice on the people of Illinois I am sure they would rise up against it.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.
By the way the make up of the Illinois state legislature is 64D - 53R in the house and 35D - 24R in the Senate. The Governor is a democrat. Just sayin.
When you graduate from college move to Illinois, campaign and vote for candidates that will not vote for bills like this. You can also vote for a governor that would veto the bill for being "fucking worthless".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. -
coyotes22
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"!!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. -
gut
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).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 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. -
gutcoyotes22;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"!!
Almost missed that...the classic "only affects a small amount". Yeah, another popular whopper of a lie politicians favor when cramming down unpopular tax and spending. -
coyotes22
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.
800 days now since they passed a budget:
A couple of days ago, Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) offered these thoughts in a National Review piece written with Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee:
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.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44718 -
Footwedgegut;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.
To suggest that the US Corporate tax rate among the highest in the world and that it is non competitive is totally false....and yet another popular myth spewed by the US corporate run media. The corporate tax rate is graduated...between 15 and 35%.....which puts it wayyyyy below average if one uses the median (25%) in comparison to other global countries..
http://www.worldwide-tax.com/#partthree
And confirmed here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world
In addition, the multi national corporations are able to skirt many corporate taxes in several different ways. And finally, the aggregate retained earnings of corporate America exceeded 5 trillion dollars over the past 12 months. So where is the re-investment in America? It ain't here in our country anymore...it is overseas where there are blossoming markets....that's where.
Yeah...how dare the federal government try to tax these globalists and keep what little capital that's left here in our country. I wouldn't worry too much about the redistribution of wealth here in the states. There's redistribution going on all right...that's a given. Where it's being redistributed........is in China, India, Vietnam, and some South American countries. -
ptown_trojans_1
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.
I haven't seen any indications that the R's will agree to a deal. Boeher agrees to talks, then backs out, he won't agree to any deal that includes taxes and the D's will not accept any deal with at least some closing of the tax loops/ deductions/ etc.
It takes both sides to make a deal, and I haven't seen any movement by the R's.
It may come at the 11th hour, but honestly that is no way to govern. -
Writerbuckeye
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 shit, right? It doesn't hurt any REAL people.
SMH -
Writerbuckeye
On another point...if you support the Democrats, how in the world can you come in here and complain about anything the Republicans are doing when your own congressional people and president WON'T PUT ON PAPER A SERIOUS BUDGET? What a bunch of phonies and posers! If they truly believe they are right -- then PUT IT ON PAPER so the American people can take time and have a serious look at what you want to do.
If you really and truly aren't afraid of the political consequences of continuing to overspend by trillions of dollars -- put it on paper.
Until you do that...shut the fuck up. You aren't really in the game. -
ptown_trojans_1
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
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. -
Writerbuckeye
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
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?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.
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. -
Footwedge
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.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.
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. -
BGFalcons82
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.
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. -
coyotes22
So what is the ND at now? In just 2.5 years of Obama?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. -
BGFalcons82
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.
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 fucking 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. -
BGFalcons82
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.
Come on, Footwedge, Boatshoes and IWP....where is the Harry Reid budget? Why won't he do his damn job? Who does the Senate work for, again? How can you have a serious budget discussion when you fail to participate?
Why does he get a pass from the press, the President, and you? -
BGFalcons82
So Boehner says the "serious debt discussions" are essentially over since the Dems vow they won't deal without sticking it to the rich...again. Boehner is stating that the Biden-led discussions of $2.5 trillion can be debated, but no real deep spending "cuts".
Do the math. The $2.5 trillion sounds like a lot...until you investigate a little deeper. The $2.5 trillion is over 10 YEARS. They are proposing to spend close to $45 to $50 trillion over the next 10 years. $2.5 trillion is just 4 or 5%!! This is insanity to believe this is true deficit reduction. Do you know that yearly deficits will still grow by $500 billion to $1 trillion every year? At some point within the next 10 years, the debt service will be the #1 budget item. How happy will you be then? Spending trillions of dollars in servicing the debt and not building 1 bridge, not paying 1 social security check, not paying 1 soldier, and not paying for any healthcare.
What will it take to wake people up to the absolute danger to our livelihoods we are facing? -
majorspark
Its called fuzzy, fuzzy, math.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. -
ptown_trojans_1
I agree the D's can go further, but at the very least they are giving on issues. The R's aren't giving anything, nothing on taxes. That's a problem.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.
Sure, they were wrong then and the R's are wrong now to play the waiting game. Come on, both sides are playing politics.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.
Sure, I agree with you mostly. But, the fact is, there is no way D's will ever agree to large cuts without some tax increase or restructuring. It is simply unrealistic.
In a perfect world. I wish we could cut the debt and the budget without tax increases and if the House and Senate were all R that would happen. But, it is unrealistic to think that D' will ever agree to any cuts with nothing on taxes.
Honestly too, the increases are not that bad. I mean which is worse, a temp tax increase or no tax increase but a default that has longer impact?