PDA

View Full Version : Afraid to Vote??



road kill
09-28-2010, 07:10 AM
Why are the leftys so afraid to vote on extendinmg the Bush tax cuts???

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/09/26/101156/congress-prepares-to-punt-spend.html

We need that extra cash to pay for our free health care!!!:D

RK

dnf777
09-28-2010, 11:07 AM
Why are the leftys so afraid to vote on extendinmg the Bush tax cuts???

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/09/26/101156/congress-prepares-to-punt-spend.html

We need that extra cash to pay for our free health care!!!:D

RK

This independent hopes they're extended for all. And if we would close corporate tax loopholes, so EVERYONE paid their fair share, we would not need to revert back to the pre-cut levels. Offshore companies DO NOT provide Americans with jobs, and should NOT be given breaks.

ducknwork
09-28-2010, 12:07 PM
Why are the leftys so afraid to vote on extendinmg the Bush tax cuts???

RK

They afraid that they might not get elected. Imagine that, more worried about themselves than the good of the country.


I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.




I find it interesting that this is the second thread on this topic and there isn't one 'lefty' who has defended their actions, much less posted on either thread.:rolleyes:

YardleyLabs
09-28-2010, 12:43 PM
My preference would be to have them extended only if cuts in spending are adopted at the same time to offset the loss of revenues in full. I do not believe there is any way to do that without abandoning the idea of having a standing army. As a consequence I think that only some of the cuts should be considered and that they should still be linked directly to spending cuts so everyone understands that tax cuts must be "paid for" with reductions in public services. BTW, the health insurance changes are already financed with other tax increases and spending cuts so repealing that law would not help close the deficit associated with tax cuts.

Gerry Clinchy
09-28-2010, 01:28 PM
BTW, the health insurance changes are already financed with other tax increases and spending cuts so repealing that law would not help close the deficit associated with tax cuts.

I'll believe that when it really happens.

$500 billion moved out of Medicare to Obamacare ... either somebody is admitting that Medicare is very poorly run or there are going to be a bunch of seniors who are going to come up with the fuzzy end of this lollipop.

$500 billion is half of what they tell us would be the total cost of Obamacare (under $1 trillion). That, alone, makes me suspicious that there is some sleight of hand in there.

The recession & high unemployment should, logically, increase the numbers of those with low enough incomes to qualify for subsidies. That could be enough to sink the ship before it leaves the dock.

Strangely, the critical thing is again about jobs ... without the jobs this boat ain't gonna float.

road kill
09-28-2010, 02:00 PM
This independent hopes they're extended for all. And if we would close corporate tax loopholes, so EVERYONE paid their fair share, we would not need to revert back to the pre-cut levels. Offshore companies DO NOT provide Americans with jobs, and should NOT be given breaks.


HMMMMMMM......interesting that you would be the first to respond to a thread you can't see!!??!!??

I mean, me being on Double Secret Probation and all!!:D


RK

dnf777
09-28-2010, 02:20 PM
HMMMMMMM......interesting that you would be the first to respond to a thread you can't see!!??!!??

I mean, me being on Double Secret Probation and all!!:D


RK

Any time you want to have a civil discussion, I'm more that willing to listen.

Besides, I wasn't logged in, so your post popped up unblocked.

ducknwork
09-28-2010, 02:20 PM
My preference would be to have them extended only if cuts in spending are adopted at the same time to offset the loss of revenues in full. I do not believe there is any way to do that without abandoning the idea of having a standing army. As a consequence I think that only some of the cuts should be considered and that they should still be linked directly to spending cuts so everyone understands that tax cuts must be "paid for" with reductions in public services. BTW, the health insurance changes are already financed with other tax increases and spending cuts so repealing that law would not help close the deficit associated with tax cuts.

But how do you feel about them putting it off until after the election? That is the issue that has been brought up twice. I think they are chickening out and, once again, afraid to stand for the right thing to do now that they may be facing unemployment like 10% of the rest of the country.

road kill
09-28-2010, 02:27 PM
But how do you feel about them putting it off until after the election? That is the issue that has been brought up twice. I think they are chickening out and, once again, afraid to stand for the right thing to do now that they may be facing unemployment like 10% of the rest of the country.

They can't cut any of those UNION jobs!

Those are votes!!

Military.........they are not a Democrats voting block.
Teachers, labor, social workers, all of those are VOTES!!!!



See what I'm sayin'??



RK

Clay Rogers
09-28-2010, 02:29 PM
My preference would be to have them extended only if cuts in spending are adopted at the same time to offset the loss of revenues in full. I do not believe there is any way to do that without abandoning the idea of having a standing army. As a consequence I think that only some of the cuts should be considered and that they should still be linked directly to spending cuts so everyone understands that tax cuts must be "paid for" with reductions in public services. BTW, the health insurance changes are already financed with other tax increases and spending cuts so repealing that law would not help close the deficit associated with tax cuts.


And Jeff, why abandon the idea of a standing Army? Why not instead abandon the welfare system? We as a country get something from the Army, protection. What do we as a country get from welfare?

road kill
09-28-2010, 02:35 PM
And Jeff, why abandon the idea of a standing Army? Why not instead abandon the welfare system? We as a country get something from the Army, protection. What do we as a country get from welfare?

The Democrats get VOTES!!!!!!



RK

Clay Rogers
09-28-2010, 02:37 PM
The Democrats get VOTES!!!!!!



RK


Yea, Yea, I know. Was just hoping for some logic as to why he picked the Army.

road kill
09-28-2010, 02:40 PM
Yea, Yea, I know. Was just hoping for some logic as to why he picked the Army.


Because he loathes the military and all it stands for.
I will get accosted for saying that, but over time you will see what I mean.




RK

YardleyLabs
09-28-2010, 02:42 PM
But how do you feel about them putting it off until after the election? That is the issue that has been brought up twice. I think they are chickening out and, once again, afraid to stand for the right thing to do now that they may be facing unemployment like 10% of the rest of the country.
Well, if you are looking at being afraid to vote, you must be talking about the Republican leadership in the Senate. Otherwise they would not have promised to filibuster any bill that preserves the tax cuts for those earning under $250k while allowing others to expire. Allow an up or down vote on that and I suspect it would pass tomorrow with a lot of Republican votes. Large majorities of the public would like to see tax cuts extended for those earning under $250k and are not interested in having tax cuts extended for those earning more. Why won't Republicans allow a vote on that option?

road kill
09-28-2010, 02:44 PM
Well, if you are looking at being afraid to vote, you must be talking about the Republican leadership in the Senate. Otherwise they would not have promised to filibuster any bill that preserves the tax cuts for those earning under $250k while allowing others to expire. Allow an up or down vote on that and I suspect it would pass tomorrow with a lot of Republican votes. Large majorities of the public would like to see tax cuts extended for those earning under $250k and are not interested in having tax cuts extended for those earning more. Why won't Republicans allow a vote on that option?

Why punish people that earn a good living?



RK

Clay Rogers
09-28-2010, 02:44 PM
Well, if you are looking at being afraid to vote, you must be talking about the Republican leadership in the Senate. Otherwise they would not have promised to filibuster any bill that preserves the tax cuts for those earning under $250k while allowing others to expire. Allow an up or down vote on that and I suspect it would pass tomorrow with a lot of Republican votes. Large majorities of the public would like to see tax cuts extended for those earning under $250k and are not interested in having tax cuts extended for those earning more. Why won't Republicans allow a vote on that option?

Not sure the Republicans can ALLOW a vote on anything. They are the minority. For now.

And I think you must have forgotten about the 34 dems who said they would vote against letting the tax cuts expire. Thats why they aren't voting on it.

Clay Rogers
09-28-2010, 02:46 PM
Why punish people that earn a good living?



RK

To still your line, Because they're DEMOCRATS. Thats how a democrat believes in getting rich, let someone else do it for me.

Bayou Magic
09-28-2010, 02:47 PM
My preference would be to have them extended .....

By "...have them extended..." are you referring to the Bush tax cuts?

Surely you intended to say '...delay the Bush tax increases...'

fp

dnf777
09-28-2010, 03:00 PM
And Jeff, why abandon the idea of a standing Army? Why not instead abandon the welfare system? We as a country get something from the Army, protection. What do we as a country get from welfare?

Sounds like a solution in the making. Why abandon either. Combine them. Make all welfare recipients perform some support mission for the military, even if its picking up trash and planting flowers on post. If they're able bodied, sign 'em up! Waive education and criminal record restrictions. Who better with guns on the front line than illiterate criminals with a bad attitude?

YardleyLabs
09-28-2010, 03:02 PM
Why punish people that earn a good living?



RK
Allowing a vote isn't "punishing" anyone. Every Senator would be perfectly free to vote against the bill extending middle class cuts knowing that would result in automatic increases for everyone based on the bills pushed through by Bush in 2001 and 2003.;-) Anyone who wants is also free to submit an alternative bill to extend all cuts. However, there aren't enough committee votes to get that through.


Not sure the Republicans can ALLOW a vote on anything. They are the minority. For now.

And I think you must have forgotten about the 34 dems who said they would vote against letting the tax cuts expire. Thats why they aren't voting on it.
41 votes in the Senate is all it takes to prevent a vote. Republicans have that many votes and have promised a filibuster against any bill that extends only some of the cuts. There is not question that such a bill would receive a majority vote if a vote were permitted. Given that I would much rather see all of the taxes cuts expire than see all of them be extended, I am perfectly happy with a stalemate.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/rpluwkj05u-vgbbnf8oidq.gif

road kill
09-28-2010, 03:04 PM
Allowing a vote isn't "punishing" anyone. Every Senator would be perfectly free to vote against the bill extending middle class cuts knowing that would result in automatic increases for everyone based on the bills pushed through by Bush in 2001 and 2003.;-) Anyone who wants is also free to submit an alternative bill to extend all cuts. However, there aren't enough committee votes to get that through.


41 votes in the Senate is all it takes to prevent a vote. Republicans have that many votes and have promised a filibuster against any bill that extends only some of the cuts. There is not question that such a bill would receive a majority vote if a vote were permitted. Given that I would much rather see all of the taxes cuts expire than see all of them be extended, I am perfectly happy with a stalemate.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/rpluwkj05u-vgbbnf8oidq.gif


Looks like the Deomcrat controlled house is siding with the 15%.

Nothing new!!!!:D


RK

YardleyLabs
09-28-2010, 03:12 PM
Looks like the Deomcrat controlled house is siding with the 15%.

Nothing new!!!!:D


RK
And the Republicans are trying to force their opinions on the 59% that disagree. :rolleyes:

road kill
09-28-2010, 03:20 PM
And the Republicans are trying to force their opinions on the 59% that disagree. :rolleyes:

Then why don't the Democrats force a vote???
Embarrass the Republicans and kick dey azzzez in November????:D

I mean, who is shutting down congress early??

Boehner??

Nope........

Pelosi!!!

YEP!!!:rolleyes:



RK

Clay Rogers
09-28-2010, 03:27 PM
Then why don't the Democrats force a vote???
Embarrass the Republicans and kick dey azzzez in November????:D

I mean, who is shutting down congress early??

Boehner??

Nope........

Pelosi!!!

YEP!!!:rolleyes:



RK



That was exactly my point to Jeff. He just danced around it by saying that the republicans would filibuster any vote. When in fact, they can't stop a vote from happening. And you make a good point RK, vote on the damn things, and let the chips fall were they may. The reason they don't is because they are gonna lose enough seats as it is. If they voted prior to the election, boy it would be bad.

Clay Rogers
09-28-2010, 03:29 PM
Allowing a vote isn't "punishing" anyone. Every Senator would be perfectly free to vote against the bill extending middle class cuts knowing that would result in automatic increases for everyone based on the bills pushed through by Bush in 2001 and 2003.;-) Anyone who wants is also free to submit an alternative bill to extend all cuts. However, there aren't enough committee votes to get that through.


41 votes in the Senate is all it takes to prevent a vote. Republicans have that many votes and have promised a filibuster against any bill that extends only some of the cuts. There is not question that such a bill would receive a majority vote if a vote were permitted. Given that I would much rather see all of the taxes cuts expire than see all of them be extended, I am perfectly happy with a stalemate.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/rpluwkj05u-vgbbnf8oidq.gif



And why are you posting polls? If you go by this as rationale for not voting, then why was healthcare voted on, when clearly the majority of the people wanted them to wait?

YardleyLabs
09-28-2010, 03:36 PM
And why are you posting polls? If you go by this as rationale for not voting, then why was healthcare voted on, when clearly the majority of the people wanted them to wait?
Because it clearly depended on which day you asked them and how you phrased the question, with polls showing anywhere from two-thirds support to two-thirds opposition in the weeks leading up to the vote. Even now, if you add those who support the bill to those who oppose it because it didn't go far enough, you end up with around 50% of the electorate. The opposition has always seemed bigger when seen out of the "right" eye than in reality.

BTW, the premise of this whole thread was that the Democrats were "afraid" to allow a vote. The fact is that the Repubicans are afraid to allow a vote in the Senate because they know that the Democrat proposal would pass and they know that the House would then go along.

Gerry Clinchy
09-28-2010, 03:45 PM
If the Rs were smart they'd compromise: keep the tax cuts for under $250K; let the FIT increase for those earning over $250K; BUT keep the capital gains taxes at a reasonably lower level than the FIT for all earnings levels.

WaterDogRem
09-28-2010, 04:21 PM
Yea, Yea, I know. Was just hoping for some logic as to why he picked the Army.



Then why don't the Democrats force a vote???
Embarrass the Republicans and kick dey azzzez in November????

I mean, who is shutting down congress early??

Boehner??

Nope........

Pelosi!!!

YEP!!!



RK


Dodged, Dodged.....Guess you guys our on mental ignore

Clay Rogers
09-28-2010, 04:34 PM
Dodged, Dodged.....Guess you guys our on mental ignore

I guess your right. I liked Dave's answer and would support it 100%.

road kill
09-28-2010, 08:46 PM
Any time you want to have a civil discussion, I'm more that willing to listen.

Besides, I wasn't logged in, so your post popped up unblocked.
How did you respond if you were not logged in??:D


RK

M&K's Retrievers
09-28-2010, 08:54 PM
How did you respond if you were not logged in??:D


RK

Beat me to it.

dnf777
09-28-2010, 09:10 PM
Beat me to it.

1) Reading posts on a different computer while not logged in, so I can see the posts.

2) Read a post by RK that asked a legitimate question, and contained no insults or diversions.

3)Picked myself up off the floor, admitted to St. Peter that miracles do happen.

4) Logged in and posted a reply

5) Read the next few posts, and told St. Peter I was right afterall. This was just a fluke. He agreed.

road kill
09-28-2010, 09:40 PM
1) Reading posts on a different computer while not logged in, so I can see the posts.

2) Read a post by RK that asked a legitimate question, and contained no insults or diversions.

3)Picked myself up off the floor, admitted to St. Peter that miracles do happen.

4) Logged in and posted a reply

5) Read the next few posts, and told St. Peter I was right afterall. This was just a fluke. He agreed.

Was it really St. Peter??

Or was it just some voices in your head, you know, the ones that tell you what to post???:confused:

RK

BrianW
09-29-2010, 09:51 AM
Re; the poll results "showing" that the majority of Americans favor the cuts staying for those under $250k. Since the vast majority of individuals earn under $100k, the fact is and what the poll results show, is that that the People want to keep more of their own money and they believe they know how to spend it better than than gov.org. But is it any wonder that "the majority" favor keeping "theirs" at the expense of someone else making more?

Especially when PBO gets up and makes statements like "On average millionaires would get a check of a hundred thousand dollars," & "$700b of unfunded tax cuts that we can't afford. This is an irresponsible thing for us to do."

That's BS and everybody knows it, but it sounds good as a "bite". Remember, that these are not tax "cuts", this is an extension of the current tax rates. What it is, (besides promoting the whole "class warfare" ideal) is $100k less in a check that "the millionaires" are sending to the government now, and an a blatant acknowledgment of $700b of unfunded spending (at least) that we can't afford. That's irresponsibility at it's epitome.
(And now btw, just how did everyone making over $250k suddenly become millionaires & billionaires? :confused: More of that fuzzy math like 57 states?)


Despite all PBO's rhetoric, this is the whole Progressive mentality of "We are going to penalize you for your success." That's why the Dems don't want it on display during these last few weeks.

YardleyLabs
09-29-2010, 10:12 AM
Re; the poll results "showing" that the majority of Americans favor the cuts staying for those under $250k. Since the vast majority of individuals earn under $100k, the fact is and what the poll results show, is that that the People want to keep more of their own money and they believe they know how to spend it better than than gov.org. But is it any wonder that "the majority" favor keeping "theirs" at the expense of someone else making more?

Especially when PBO gets up and makes statements like "On average millionaires would get a check of a hundred thousand dollars," & "$700b of unfunded tax cuts that we can't afford. This is an irresponsible thing for us to do."

That's BS and everybody knows it, but it sounds good as a "bite". Remember, that these are not tax "cuts", this is an extension of the current tax rates. What it is, (besides promoting the whole "class warfare" ideal) is $100k less in a check that "the millionaires" are sending to the government now, and an a blatant acknowledgment of $700b of unfunded spending (at least) that we can't afford. That's irresponsibility at it's epitome.
(And now btw, just how did everyone making over $250k suddenly become millionaires & billionaires? :confused: More of that fuzzy math like 57 states?)


Despite all PBO's rhetoric, this is the whole Progressive mentality of "We are going to penalize you for your success." That's why the Dems don't want it on display during these last few weeks.

1. The majority of families actually earn less than $50,000 per year -- not even close to $100k.

2. The reason the tax cuts are expiring is that when they were originally adopted, the law required either that the revenue loss be offset with spending cuts (i.e. "funded") or that the tax cuts be supported by a super majority. The administration was not prepared to implement spending cuts and did not have the votes to pass the tax cuts with a super majority. They got around the law by having the tax cuts expire. Current forecasts of deficits do not assume that cuts will be extended for those with incomes over $250k. As a consequence, deficits that are already so high that they will destroy what is left of our economy would be driven even higher.

We need to be looking at ways to reduce the deficit by $500-700 billion per year beginning within the next 1-2 years. There is no way to do that without looking both at massive spending cuts and tax increases. Neither party has proposed ways to make the situation better.

WaterDogRem
09-29-2010, 11:00 AM
I guess your right. I liked Dave's answer and would support it 100%.

Agree.
Guess it's hard to respond to logical reasoning and facts.

ducknwork
09-29-2010, 12:02 PM
1. The majority of families actually earn less than $50,000 per year -- not even close to $100k.



$50,000 is less than $100,000, right?

Then what he said is correct.

Common sense would tell you that most people, by human nature, are going to vote to keep more of their money and let the big bad rich guys pay for it. After all, we do always hear that it's okay as long as someone else's ox is being gored, right? That's all it's about and that's all the O wants to make it about. Class envy. Disgusting, if you ask me.

BrianW
09-30-2010, 10:04 AM
So you feel that letting the current rates expire doesn't penalize one for doing better?
If I invent a widget and my income is $249k , at a 33% tax rate or $82,170, the final number would be $166,830.
Let's say the current tax rates expire for those making over $250k and for next year, their rate increases to a top rate of 35%. (If it stayed that low I'd be very surprised)
Next year, I get lucky (?) and sell more widgets and end at $251k. My tax bill is then $87,850, a difference of $5020. So for doing $2k better in sales, I lose $3020 more in taxes, for a net of $163,150. That's a strange definition of "success". :rolleyes:
Where is my (or anyone else's) incentive to do better?

We also all know, with 99% certainty, that that's just the tip of the iceberg, because while everybody knows we're in a hole, Obama/Congress can't stop digging! Care to bet that, in the name of fighting this deficit crisis, the rate goes much higher than that 35% AND the ceiling gets lowered? Remember that FDR tried to impose a 100% tax rate on incomes over $25k to help with the war effort and the highest rates have been in the 90's in the past.
After all, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste' ... it's an opportunity to do things you didn't think you could do before"

"Should five per cent appear too small, Be thankful I don't take it all..."
Beatles - Taxman

Julie R.
09-30-2010, 10:27 AM
Sounds like a solution in the making. Why abandon either. Combine them. Make all welfare recipients perform some support mission for the military, even if its picking up trash and planting flowers on post. If they're able bodied, sign 'em up! Waive education and criminal record restrictions. Who better with guns on the front line than illiterate criminals with a bad attitude?

So it was OK for you and your family to avail yourself of government largesse but anyone else that does is an illiterate criminal? Doesn't sound very "progressive" or "middle of the road" to me.

david gibson
09-30-2010, 10:43 AM
Sounds like a solution in the making. Why abandon either. Combine them. Make all welfare recipients perform some support mission for the military, even if its picking up trash and planting flowers on post. If they're able bodied, sign 'em up! Waive education and criminal record restrictions. Who better with guns on the front line than illiterate criminals with a bad attitude?

so you are saying all welfare recipients are illiterate criminals? spin your way out of that one houdini.

oh yeah. and that would end any atrocities like we see by the few bad seeds already. yep, criminals with a bad attitude would make great soldiers. great idea dave.

and there is no way in heck you are ever going to get liberals to agree to forced military service in exchange for welfare. it would cost them votes. heck, they even think a chain gang is cruel and unusual punishment.

ducknwork
09-30-2010, 11:44 AM
So it was OK for you and your family to avail yourself of government largesse but anyone else that does is an illiterate criminal? Doesn't sound very "progressive" or "middle of the road" to me.

Careful, Julie...you are about to get the 'you don't know me, don't talk about my family or else' speech.

road kill
09-30-2010, 11:51 AM
Careful, Julie...you are about to get the 'you don't know me, don't talk about my family or else' speech.
Yeah, or even worse, DOUBLE SECRET PROBATION!

GADZOOKS!


RK

david gibson
09-30-2010, 11:53 AM
Careful, Julie...you are about to get the 'you don't know me, don't talk about my family or else' speech.

oh yeah, that was clearly over dnf's invisible line about bringing family into the discussion! i am sure the threats are coming, you know he is steaming over it

ducknwork
09-30-2010, 11:55 AM
I don't know why, but when RK just said 'gadzooks', I almost spit my drink...

Just struck me funny I guess, cause that was hilarious.