Close but no cigar

[MOTOWN]

Extend tax cuts to folks making less than 250,000. Extend unemployment benefits. Then tax the ever living **** out of:
1.) The companies that used to be here but shipped factories overseas to make a bigger profit.
2.) The companies that did stay here but outsource most of the online/tech/support centers out of the U.S.
3.) War profiteers.
4.) Mexico. Their biggest export is poverty, and it is exported to us, so send them a bill.

The Gov. allowed corporations to offshore or outright eliminate American jobs so **** 'em, let them keep paying unemployment benefits.

Next topic.

+1000 i couldnt have said it any better than that! i totaly agree with your stance

[PonyUP]

Extend tax cuts to folks making less than 250,000. Extend unemployment benefits. Then tax the ever living **** out of:
1.) The companies that used to be here but shipped factories overseas to make a bigger profit.
2.) The companies that did stay here but outsource most of the online/tech/support centers out of the U.S.
3.) War profiteers.
4.) Mexico. Their biggest export is poverty, and it is exported to us, so send them a bill.

The Gov. allowed corporations to offshore or outright eliminate American jobs so **** 'em, let them keep paying unemployment benefits.

Next topic.

I like taxing the companies outsourcing to other countries and definitely feel we need to curb the flow of illegal immigrants coming from all countries.
But don't you feel that if we raise taxes on those over $250K it hurts the small business owner, which means they won't hire anyone.
And it hurts the middle calss in area with a higher cost of living where salaries are higher.
$250K in New York would be similar to making $100K in Kansas.
But the key is it has to be based on the individual. The $250K cap they are talking about now is for houesholds, it's a little word they have slid in there.

[packardbob]

I don't usually comment on political issues, but I think the people here are much more level minded than elsewhere, so I will indulge myself and get political for a moment. I consider myself a Libertarian, small gov't, low taxes, and alot of personal freedom. Everybody wants low taxes, but then who foots the bill for DC? Penn Jillette said it best when he exclaimed, "the government needs to spend less of our f*****g money, problem solved!" Were the Dems ignorant for passing on a million dollar/year compromise? In a nutshell, yes, but Bush was stupid for cutting taxes and continuing to spend like a drunken sailor. Wait a moment, I didn't mean to insult sailors, at least they quit spending when they run out of money. If the Republicans want to cut taxes, which I am all for, they need to reel in spending first. If the Dems want to continue to tax the hell out of the people that earn the most money, get ready for a lousey economy. People arent going to invest more money into creating new jobs if the money is now on it's way to DC. These people aren't stupid, they have their money budgeted, X amount for payroll, Y amount for capital improvements, Z amount for savings... If the government comes in and starts taking a bigger chunk, businesses will cut the fat, but sooner or later personel will either get a payfreeze or get fired.

[CBT]

I like taxing the companies outsourcing to other countries and definitely feel we need to curb the flow of illegal immigrants coming from all countries.
But don't you feel that if we raise taxes on those over $250K it hurts the small business owner, <---No, I do not feel that way. which means they won't hire anyone.
And it hurts the middle calss in area with a higher cost of living where salaries are higher.
$250K in New York would be similar to making $100K in Kansas.
But the key is it has to be based on the individual. The $250K cap they are talking about now is for houesholds, it's a little word they have slid in there.

"The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. ... They have seen, too, that one legislative interference is but the first link of a long chain of repetitions, every subsequent interference being naturally produced by the effects of the preceding." --James Madison

Barack Hussein Obama, intent on increasing your taxes in January by way of letting the Bush-era tax reductions expire (ostensibly to reduce the deficits Democrats created1), has launched a ruse to steal the budget-cutting thunder of his Republican opponents.
First, Obama ordered a freeze on bonuses for some 3,000 of his high-paid political appointees. Then he announced a freeze on the wages of all federal workers for the next two years.
One Social Security administrator summed up the reaction of her fellow federal union workers: "That's why Obama's ratings are below Bush's, and that's hard to be unless you're Osama bin Laden. I can't wait until I retire."
Well, given the fact that federal bureaucrats are now endowed with grossly disproportionate wages and benefits, one can understand why retirement remains attractive for them. On the other hand, millions of private sector citizens will be working well beyond retirement age in order to make ends meet, especially given the increased tax burdens they'll likely incur in the future to pay off Obama's deficit.
Let's review the most recent data.
Compared to more productive private sector employees, whose income is confiscated to pay government wages and benefits, hourly government workers are paid 57 percent more than those in the private sector for comparable jobs ($28.64/hour vs. $18.27/hour). Salaried bureaucrats enjoy average annual wages of $78,901, while those in the private sector average $50,111, and the number of bureaucrats collecting more than $150,000 a year has doubled since Obama took office.
When benefits such as taxpayer-funded contributions to pensions are included, government bureaucrats end up with 85 percent more compensation than their private sector comparables.
On top of that disparity, bureaucrat jobs are virtually tenured, both recession proof and unaffected by a dearth of productivity. Benjamin Franklin once famously said, "Nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes." Today, however, you can add government jobs to the short list of guarantees.
Notably, Obama did not order a freeze on government hiring, and I can assure you that the number of exemptions for government agency wage freezes will eventually equal the number of government agencies. Additionally, Obama didn't freeze promotions, meaning that any federal worker can receive a de facto pay raise by "promotion" into the next incremental GSA scale.
Since the beginning of the current recession, private sector employment is down 6.8 percent. On the other hand, Obama has used taxpayer funds and debt on future generations, his so-called "recovery program2," to grow the ranks of central government bureaucrats by more than 10 percent in the same time period.
Of course, Obama's wage-freeze charade fails to put any noticeable dent into his accumulating $1,000,000,000,000-plus deficits. Taxes, he says, must be increased to do that.
Once again, let's review.
Like any devoted Socialist, Obama's objective is to break the back of free enterprise3, in this case, with unbearable deficits. When challenged about his motives, Obama invariably claims that he "inherited this mess" from the Bush administration.
However, the Executive Branch does not set the budget. Congress does. And from the '09 budget forward, budget deficits have increased greatly.
For the record1, Democrats have controlled Congress since January 2007, about the time the housing market collapse4 began. Thus, Democrats controlled the budgets for FY2008 and FY2009 as they did with FY2010 and FY2011.
For FY2008 Democrats compromised with President Bush on spending. However, for FY2009 Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed the Bush administration by way of continuing resolutions until Barack Obama took office.
Again, for the record, Obama was a member of the Senate majority in 2007 and 2008, and he voted for those spending bills.
The last budget deficit that Democrats "inherited" was FY 2007, the last of the Republican congressional budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and it was the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. Thus, the only deficit Obama has inherited is that which he and his Democrat majorities generated.
Those pesky facts notwithstanding, a Republican majority is about to take over the House, and Republicans in the Senate seem to have found a spine.
If Republicans are serious about budget and deficit control, they should start by cutting their own bloated salaries and budgets. There is no greater sweetheart deal than being elected to our national legislature, where members of Congress are paid exorbitantly, and are eligible for lifetime benefits after "serving" for just five years -- one term for Senators. If they are perpetually elected, as is the case with many members, they are eligible for almost 80 percent of their salary as a guaranteed annual pension.
Membership certainly has its privileges.
If members of Congress don't like the pay cuts, perhaps we can cut their time accordingly. Send them home more often, and see if a little of the reality outside the Beltway sinks in.
As my colleague Cal Thomas opined this week, "The Founders were keenly aware of the danger of a Congress divorced from the realities of the rest of the country. During the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Roger Sherman of Connecticut wrote, 'Representatives ought to return home and mix with the people. By remaining at the seat of government, they would acquire the habits of the place, which might differ from those of their constituents.'"
If Republicans are really serious about the constitutional role of government5, they should identify any and all taxes and expenditures not expressly authorized by our Constitution, and schedule them for termination. While they are at it, they should revoke congressional exemptions, and make themselves subject to the same laws and regulations they impose upon the rest of us. (Oh, and Mr. Speaker-to-be, return Pelosi's opulent Boeing 757 to the Air Force, and settle for something smaller.)
For his part, poor Barry Obama lamented this week that he might have to delay his "holiday vacation" to Hawaii in order to get his tax-and-spend agenda through Congress. (How many golf outings and exotic vacations must our nouveau riche lotto winner take?)
Perhaps Obama should take a tax lesson from John Kennedy, the father of the modern Democrat party: "A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget.... As the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues. Prosperity is the real way to balance our budget. By lowering tax rates, by increasing jobs and income, we can expand tax revenues and finally bring our budget into balance."
Indeed, tax reductions in each of the last five administrations have resulted in tax revenue increases to the fed's coffers.

[PonyUP]

"The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. ... They have seen, too, that one legislative interference is but the first link of a long chain of repetitions, every subsequent interference being naturally produced by the effects of the preceding." --James Madison

Barack Hussein Obama, intent on increasing your taxes in January by way of letting the Bush-era tax reductions expire (ostensibly to reduce the deficits Democrats created1), has launched a ruse to steal the budget-cutting thunder of his Republican opponents.
First, Obama ordered a freeze on bonuses for some 3,000 of his high-paid political appointees. Then he announced a freeze on the wages of all federal workers for the next two years.
One Social Security administrator summed up the reaction of her fellow federal union workers: "That's why Obama's ratings are below Bush's, and that's hard to be unless you're Osama bin Laden. I can't wait until I retire."
Well, given the fact that federal bureaucrats are now endowed with grossly disproportionate wages and benefits, one can understand why retirement remains attractive for them. On the other hand, millions of private sector citizens will be working well beyond retirement age in order to make ends meet, especially given the increased tax burdens they'll likely incur in the future to pay off Obama's deficit.
Let's review the most recent data.
Compared to more productive private sector employees, whose income is confiscated to pay government wages and benefits, hourly government workers are paid 57 percent more than those in the private sector for comparable jobs ($28.64/hour vs. $18.27/hour). Salaried bureaucrats enjoy average annual wages of $78,901, while those in the private sector average $50,111, and the number of bureaucrats collecting more than $150,000 a year has doubled since Obama took office.
When benefits such as taxpayer-funded contributions to pensions are included, government bureaucrats end up with 85 percent more compensation than their private sector comparables.
On top of that disparity, bureaucrat jobs are virtually tenured, both recession proof and unaffected by a dearth of productivity. Benjamin Franklin once famously said, "Nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes." Today, however, you can add government jobs to the short list of guarantees.
Notably, Obama did not order a freeze on government hiring, and I can assure you that the number of exemptions for government agency wage freezes will eventually equal the number of government agencies. Additionally, Obama didn't freeze promotions, meaning that any federal worker can receive a de facto pay raise by "promotion" into the next incremental GSA scale.
Since the beginning of the current recession, private sector employment is down 6.8 percent. On the other hand, Obama has used taxpayer funds and debt on future generations, his so-called "recovery program2," to grow the ranks of central government bureaucrats by more than 10 percent in the same time period.
Of course, Obama's wage-freeze charade fails to put any noticeable dent into his accumulating $1,000,000,000,000-plus deficits. Taxes, he says, must be increased to do that.
Once again, let's review.
Like any devoted Socialist, Obama's objective is to break the back of free enterprise3, in this case, with unbearable deficits. When challenged about his motives, Obama invariably claims that he "inherited this mess" from the Bush administration.
However, the Executive Branch does not set the budget. Congress does. And from the '09 budget forward, budget deficits have increased greatly.
For the record1, Democrats have controlled Congress since January 2007, about the time the housing market collapse4 began. Thus, Democrats controlled the budgets for FY2008 and FY2009 as they did with FY2010 and FY2011.
For FY2008 Democrats compromised with President Bush on spending. However, for FY2009 Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed the Bush administration by way of continuing resolutions until Barack Obama took office.
Again, for the record, Obama was a member of the Senate majority in 2007 and 2008, and he voted for those spending bills.
The last budget deficit that Democrats "inherited" was FY 2007, the last of the Republican congressional budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and it was the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. Thus, the only deficit Obama has inherited is that which he and his Democrat majorities generated.
Those pesky facts notwithstanding, a Republican majority is about to take over the House, and Republicans in the Senate seem to have found a spine.
If Republicans are serious about budget and deficit control, they should start by cutting their own bloated salaries and budgets. There is no greater sweetheart deal than being elected to our national legislature, where members of Congress are paid exorbitantly, and are eligible for lifetime benefits after "serving" for just five years -- one term for Senators. If they are perpetually elected, as is the case with many members, they are eligible for almost 80 percent of their salary as a guaranteed annual pension.
Membership certainly has its privileges.
If members of Congress don't like the pay cuts, perhaps we can cut their time accordingly. Send them home more often, and see if a little of the reality outside the Beltway sinks in.
As my colleague Cal Thomas opined this week, "The Founders were keenly aware of the danger of a Congress divorced from the realities of the rest of the country. During the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Roger Sherman of Connecticut wrote, 'Representatives ought to return home and mix with the people. By remaining at the seat of government, they would acquire the habits of the place, which might differ from those of their constituents.'"
If Republicans are really serious about the constitutional role of government5, they should identify any and all taxes and expenditures not expressly authorized by our Constitution, and schedule them for termination. While they are at it, they should revoke congressional exemptions, and make themselves subject to the same laws and regulations they impose upon the rest of us. (Oh, and Mr. Speaker-to-be, return Pelosi's opulent Boeing 757 to the Air Force, and settle for something smaller.)
For his part, poor Barry Obama lamented this week that he might have to delay his "holiday vacation" to Hawaii in order to get his tax-and-spend agenda through Congress. (How many golf outings and exotic vacations must our nouveau riche lotto winner take?)
Perhaps Obama should take a tax lesson from John Kennedy, the father of the modern Democrat party: "A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget.... As the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues. Prosperity is the real way to balance our budget. By lowering tax rates, by increasing jobs and income, we can expand tax revenues and finally bring our budget into balance."
Indeed, tax reductions in each of the last five administrations have resulted in tax revenue increases to the fed's coffers.

I still lament that since they are talking about households, a husband that makes $150K (In New York this could be a middle management position) and a wife making $100K their taxes would go up greatly.

I think there needs to be a cap, it just needs to be higher than $250K. If a small business owner owns an ice cream shop, and it makes $500K in the year, he has no tax breaks and after he pays his employees, lease, utilities and vendors and the increased taxes, he takes home a lot less pay.

I will say that it is not a fair defense for Obama to say he inherited this economy. I also think the President doesn't have as much impact on the economy as we think. The crash, was not Bushes fault, no one was watching and some major institutions collapsed. It's really no different than previous market crashes that crippled the economy.

However the point about the Budget. Both Congress and the President need to sign off on the Budget. Congress yields the most power as they hold the right of continuing resolutions. but at the end of the day, the President submits a budget to congress for approval, and then they negotiate until both are happy that nothing is being accomplished. Which is why it's dangerous to have the same party in the White House that is in control of congress. It's why we haven't had a balanced Budget since Clinton with a Republican Congress. It could have happened under Bush with a democratic congress, but there were wars to fight which greatly increased spending, tax cuts that needed to be paid for, and other programs.
Maybe if we didn't enter the war in Iraq, a balanced budget may have been possible. But into todays world, there is just too much animosity between parties to work together.

[CBT]

I still lament that since they are talking about households, a husband that makes $150K (In New York this could be a middle management position) and a wife making $100K their taxes would go up greatly.

I think there needs to be a cap, it just needs to be higher than $250K. If a small business owner owns an ice cream shop, and it makes $500K in the year, he has no tax breaks and after he pays his employees, lease, utilities and vendors and the increased taxes, he takes home a lot less pay.

I will say that it is not a fair defense for Obama to say he inherited this economy. I also think the President doesn't have as much impact on the economy as we think. The crash, was not Bushes fault, no one was watching and some major institutions collapsed. It's really no different than previous market crashes that crippled the economy.

However the point about the Budget. Both Congress and the President need to sign off on the Budget. Congress yields the most power as they hold the right of continuing resolutions. but at the end of the day, the President submits a budget to congress for approval, and then they negotiate until both are happy that nothing is being accomplished. Which is why it's dangerous to have the same party in the White House that is in control of congress. It's why we haven't had a balanced Budget since Clinton with a Republican Congress. It could have happened under Bush with a democratic congress, but there were wars to fight which greatly increased spending, tax cuts that needed to be paid for, and other programs.
Maybe if we didn't enter the war in Iraq, a balanced budget may have been possible. But into todays world, there is just too much animosity between parties to work together.

There's another money saver, get out of other peoples sand boxes. Like my post last week said, kids who watched the twin towers fall in the 5th grade are now fighting in Iraq and Afghannyland. Can someone explain how these two wars has helped/benefited America? Oh snap, our tax dollars are funding it? I think people should be allowed to pay whatever amount of tax they feel like donating. Some. None. All. Whatever. Or, pick the specific social program they feel like thier tax dollars should go directly towards. I'm all about the welfare phones I posted about already.

[FordNut]

Back to the original post,

I agree, increasing taxes at the $250k level is a bad idea, and the bipartisan plan to keep taxes the same for everybody under $1 million seems reasonable, even several millionaires think so.

A big problem with the tax policies is exactly as mentioned in another post, $250k is a lot of money here in East TN, but it's not very much in San Francisco or New York City. Taxes really need to be indexed based on the regional cost of living.

[FordNut]

Another thing, the Pelosi-led democrats are using the exact same "no amendments" tactic they had been using prior to the election, so they can try to ram thru legislation the way they want it... They didn't learn anything at all from the polls.

[PonyUP]

There's another money saver, get out of other peoples sand boxes. Like my post last week said, kids who watched the twin towers fall in the 5th grade are now fighting in Iraq and Afghannyland. Can someone explain how these two wars has helped/benefited America? Oh snap, our tax dollars are funding it? I think people should be allowed to pay whatever amount of tax they feel like donating. Some. None. All. Whatever. Or, pick the specific social program they feel like thier tax dollars should go directly towards. I'm all about the welfare phones I posted about already.

A great point, the wars have cost over $1.3 Trillion, which would be a huge cost savings. I don't think leaving taxes up to whatever people want to donate however will work. There's too many people trying to scam the system that would donate nothing.

But it should all be public knowledge as to exactly where our taxes go. I guess this is addressed by the Freedom of Information act, however no one is going to read a bill that is 5000 pages long. How about we instead institute a 3 page limit to all bills, eliminate earmarks, and give everything a straight thumbs up or down vote

[PonyUP]

Another thing, the Pelosi-led democrats are using the exact same "no amendments" tactic they had been using prior to the election, so they can try to ram thru legislation the way they want it... They didn't learn anything at all from the polls.

And this is what saddens me, for both sides really. When Bush had a Republican congress the same thign went on, and this is the Dem's version of veangence. And it goes back long before that.

What really saddens me is that there a great ideas on both sides of the aisle, they just need to be willing to listen and work together as a team. There is no team atmosphere there, only name calling and an us vs. them mentality.

I get so angered when Democrats are called socialists, and liberals are termed as fringe fanatics. And conservatives are railed as bible bangers and tea party is pasted as nutbags. All groups above truly want what they feel is best for their country and their voice deserves to be heard, we are a free country. Unfortunately your freedom is determined by your bank account, which is why we must break the 2 party system and have hardline campaign finance reform. Until then, only 2 voices will be heard, and they will constantly be at each others throat

[Vortex]

When Republicans talk about how Obama's proposal to let the Bush tax cuts expire on incomes over $250,000. would hurt small business, they are talking about some really, really huge businesses which are classified as 'small business' for tax purposes only. They are talking about any S corporation, partnership or sole proprietorship, some of which have incomes of billions of dollars. For example, the Bechtel Corporation, the largest construction company in the world with 2009 revenues of $30.8 billion is classified as a 'small business' for tax purposes. Price Waterhouse Coopers, an accounting firm with $26 billion in revenue in 2009, is classified as a 'small business.' It seems that any business with less than 100 owners can be classified as a small business no matter how many employees or how much revenue they have. Some small businesses are owned by billionaires. Koch Industries, a conglomerate of partnerships with 70,000 employees, owned by the billionaire Koch brothers Charles and David, is classified as a 'small business.'

In other words, lets let the little guys foot the bill for the big guys some more. What a joke.

[1 Bad Merc]

I recently ran into a quote from a 18th century Frenchman that really rings true today. He said this about America -

"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money"-Alexis de Tocqueville

I find this statement to be very prophetic.

[MrBluGruv]

Back to the original post,

I agree, increasing taxes at the $250k level is a bad idea, and the bipartisan plan to keep taxes the same for everybody under $1 million seems reasonable, even several millionaires think so.

A big problem with the tax policies is exactly as mentioned in another post, $250k is a lot of money here in East TN, but it's not very much in San Francisco or New York City. Taxes really need to be indexed based on the regional cost of living.

Or maybe a flat tax. It's hard to be unfair with that....

[Mustang man]

After reading your posts it sounds as if you have mislabeled yourself a "liberal". You sound more like a Democrat that may have some liberal leanings. I've never talked to a true Liberal that sounds as level headed as you. Liberals usually dont know the meaning of compromise or common sense and believe they know everything and whats best for everybody.

[PonyUP]

After reading your posts it sounds as if you have mislabeled yourself a "liberal". You sound more like a Democrat that may have some liberal leanings. I've never talked to a true Liberal that sounds as level headed as you. Liberals usually dont know the meaning of compromise or common sense and believe they know everything and whats best for everybody.

Thanks for the kind words. Your assessment is probably more accurate that I am more of a dem with some liberal tendencies. I really believe that many views and beliefs in the realm of politics have validity, but too many times politicians are playing to their base. Unfortunately I think their base are actually the hardcore fanatics that refuse to compromise. Things can get done when we walk in one anothers shoes