Speaking with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Obama said he would consider permitting a renewal of Bush era tax cuts for all taxpayers, including the wealthy, but that Republicans would be expected to include commitments to some Democratic priorities.
WHY do they refer to it as "tax cuts" when reality is they are tax increases??
Anyone ever work for a poor person? I hope the wealthy keep getting richer, and the poor keep getting enough to do what their level of motivation allows.
The following words in your search query were ignored because they are too common words: obama.
Each word must consist of at least 3 characters and must not contain more than 14 characters excluding wildcards.
dude, the rich getting richer in this economy is merely putting more distance between them and the riff-raff.
You have no clue. Really. They are called 'tax cuts' because that is what they were, legally. The Bush cuts were meant to last 10 years and expire. Given the unforseen couple of wars, they should have been eliminated back in 2002. The folks playing semantic games are the ones shouting Obama Tax Hike. The idea that this nation would continue to reward inherited wealth with borrowed money while denying unemployment benefits is obscene. There is no other word for it.
Pudfark wrote: Mon May 29, 2017 11:15 am
I live in Texas....you live in America.
The Bush cuts were meant to last 10 years and expire
youre comprehension is stunning. I will make certain any work/analysis I need is done overseas.
I'll type slowly. They must have been desperate when you were hired
what happens when those decreases expire?
should we continue to call whats about to happen tax cuts, or address them as looming tax increases, across the board?
The following words in your search query were ignored because they are too common words: obama.
Each word must consist of at least 3 characters and must not contain more than 14 characters excluding wildcards.
Dawg wrote:should we continue to call whats about to happen tax cuts, or address them as looming tax increases, across the board?
we should call them a day of reckoning, when we start to pay what we spend. As it should be. If you have a problem with paying for Medicare, Social Security and Defense, step up, grow a pair and say so. I've had an open offer on here for 6 years or more to suggest reducing spending so that the budget is balanced without more revenues. Not one of you loons has touched that challenge. You can't, because it can't be done without proposing cuts that the public would disown on sight. So, the question becomes: when do we start paying the whole bill,as opposed to feeding a debt to our children and grandchildren, basically ensuring that they won't live in anything you or I would recognize as the United States of America?
Pudfark wrote: Mon May 29, 2017 11:15 am
I live in Texas....you live in America.
Dawg...
Arguing with Callmesick is like having a debate at the special Olympics.
Face it, he is so dull he will never understand how his benevolent
communists got do badly MASSACRED in the last election.
To him the math is not obvious.
A tax increase to fund his "liberal" agenda is not a tax at all.
It is a justifiable investment in future Democratic voters.
"James Carville wrote:
Sometimes, you have to face the fact that some folks are just flat-out stupid. "
Look at the mirror Callmesick, you will see a shining example of the above statement.
HH
Last edited by HappyHappy on Sun Dec 05, 2010 9:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Dawg, as a frame of reference, the above poster hasn't ever stated what he would cut out of the budget. Any wonder why, given the level of brainpower he shows here?
Pudfark wrote: Mon May 29, 2017 11:15 am
I live in Texas....you live in America.
..slick...what "we spend"? I quit reading at that point.
I can only guess you sit there smugly thinking everything you post will just blow us all away. Youre right. I'm fucking stunned.
I'm done, wheres the ignore button?
The following words in your search query were ignored because they are too common words: obama.
Each word must consist of at least 3 characters and must not contain more than 14 characters excluding wildcards.
Now you see why I've stopped providing proof to Slick when he questions what I post? He's just too stupid to get it. Who's the comedian that said "you can't fix stupid"? Slick is proof of that.
what part of paying for what we spend is eluding you? We, the people, as represented by our government spend for: Defense, Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, plus Education, Veterans, Housing, Unemployment and Disability benefits. Those items alone cost over $2.6 trillion, with several catagories having to become costly as the population demographics shift with time. Added to that is the cost of paying for outstanding debt obligations. Further we spend another .7 Trillion on smaller items from the critically necessary to the completely ridiculous. We do not, at current tax rates, come close to paying the tab, pushing close to 20% onto long-term debt. Time to put the credit card away and pay as you go. That WAS the real,overriding concern from the last election, wasn't it? As with a household, putting the cards away might mean bringing in more income, or cutting the spending. As you all NEVER have come close to even discussing what you cut to make up a $1 trillion per year shortfall, and have no seeming concept that you also have to plan for projected costs, PAYING MORE is the only choice left. Get over it, share the burden with your fellow citizens, and know you're doing it for future generations. Not up to the sacrifices to turn an economy and nation around? That's a problem,now, isn't it?
Pudfark wrote: Mon May 29, 2017 11:15 am
I live in Texas....you live in America.
