john boehner just now essentially said "we will not increase the debt limit if there are any tax increases, so we will take money away from the elderly while maintaining the bush tax cuts for my base, the millionaires and billionaires, who coincidently have done nothing to create jobs with said tax cuts..."
disgusting motherfucker.
if we are "out of money" like he just said we are, he has to raise revenue. there is no other way around it. if he really believes what he just said, then this situation is not as dire as he is claiming it to be...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
In other words, the Republicans want the poor to receive the full brunt of these cuts, whilst the wealthy get off scott free. And they're even willing to let the country go bankrupt in order to acheive this objective?
And to think that all of this could be solved simply by cutting back on military spending...
Republican House Speaker John Boehner quits debt talks
'...As well as cutting $650bn from Medicare, Medicaid and other entitlements, the president said he was offering to slash $1tr in discretionary spending, while seeking $1.2tr in revenues, which could have been achieved by raising income tax rates...
Mr Boehner said they had been close to a deal until Mr Obama had demanded $400bn in tax increases on top of about $800bn in revenues that would have been reaped through a comprehensive rewrite of the tax code...
Republicans have been unwilling to consider raising new taxes to counter the growing budget deficits.
The Democrats have been opposed to cutting popular healthcare and welfare programmes for pensioners and the poor.'
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
"Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of children and grandchildren." ---Senator Barack Obama 2006, just before he cast his NO vote against a debt ceiling increase.
"Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of children and grandchildren." ---Senator Barack Obama 2006, just before he cast his NO vote against a debt ceiling increase.
big deal, it still passed then.
it is a necessity to pass it now.
if you conservatives are willing to stick to idealogy over all and deny this from passing and send us back into a depression you all deserve what happens.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
When will it be enough? I am not for raising it, end participation in three wars and it is no longer a problem.
WASHINGTON -- After another round of failed negotiations with Republicans over the weekend, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Sunday night laid out Democratic leaders' latest — and likely final — proposal for a deficit reduction deal: $2.7 trillion in cuts, a debt ceiling hike through the end of 2012 and no revenues.
The proposal "meets Republicans' two major criteria," Reid said in a statement. It includes enough spending cuts to meet or exceed the amount of a debt ceiling raise through the end of 2012, and it doesn't includes any of the new revenues Democrats have been pushing for.
"We hope Speaker Boehner will abandon his 'my way or the highway' approach, and join us in forging a bipartisan compromise along these lines," Reid said.
The Nevada Democrat said talks broke down again on Sunday night as Republican leaders insisted on passing a short-term debt ceiling increase. During a Saturday briefing with House Republicans, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) announced his plan to push for a more than $3 trillion deficit reduction package that would raise the debt ceiling in increments, by $900 billion at first and then by about $1.6 trillion next year. The White House and Democratic leaders have ruled out any type of short-term extension out of concerns that it would create uncertainty in financial markets and expose the already fragile economy to greater risks.
Reid called the GOP plan "a non-starter in the Senate and with the President." He and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) huddled with President Barack Obama on Sunday night, just before Reid unveiled the latest Democratic plan.
Pelosi embraced Reid's proposal in a statement after their meeting.
"I applaud Senator Reid for putting forward an approach to reduce the deficit that protects Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries," she said.
With pressure mounting on Congress and the White House to ensure the government doesn't default on its debt, the latest Democratic offering shows just how much party leaders have compromised during the negotiations as Republicans have held their ground. For weeks, Democrats demanded that any substantial package include revenues to offset spending cuts, namely by closing corporate tax loopholes and ending subsidies for the oil and gas industry. But their demands have now been whittled away to a proposal coming from their own party with major cuts and no revenue at all.
Republicans, meanwhile, have largely gotten what they wanted in their push for significant spending cuts without new revenue.
Negotiators are running out of time to reach a deal by August 2, the day the government is expected to run out of money to pay its bills and send the United States into default. And even if lawmakers are able to pull off an eleventh-hour deal that averts that scenario, credit rating agencies have already warned lawmakers that the United States may still have its credit rating downgraded as a result of the protracted debate over the debt limit. If that were to occur, Americans would face higher interest rates on their credit cards, student loans and mortgages.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
end participation in three wars and it is no longer a problem.
The previous U.S government started two of these wars, and in the process ransacked 2 sovereign nations, unleashing sectarian violence and massive instability.
And now that you have economic troubles at home your answer is abandon these countries to their fate?
Not cool. You need to fix the mess you created before simply jumping ship.
Starting a war isn't the same as gatecrashing a party and then slipping out through the back door as soon as someone spills red wine all over the carpet.
When will it be enough? I am not for raising it, end participation in three wars and it is no longer a problem.
ending the 3 wars will not solve the problems right now. the reason you have to raise the debt ceiling is not for just future spending its for paying the bills for services you already got. basically what you are saying is that you have decided to not pay your visa cuase you don't like how much money your paying. both democrats and reb> are idiots. i really hope they smarten up cause i would hate to see what will happen if they don't.
WASHINGTON -- After another round of failed negotiations with Republicans over the weekend, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Sunday night laid out Democratic leaders' latest — and likely final — proposal for a deficit reduction deal: $2.7 trillion in cuts, a debt ceiling hike through the end of 2012 and no revenues.
The proposal "meets Republicans' two major criteria," Reid said in a statement. It includes enough spending cuts to meet or exceed the amount of a debt ceiling raise through the end of 2012, and it doesn't includes any of the new revenues Democrats have been pushing for.
"We hope Speaker Boehner will abandon his 'my way or the highway' approach, and join us in forging a bipartisan compromise along these lines," Reid said.
The Nevada Democrat said talks broke down again on Sunday night as Republican leaders insisted on passing a short-term debt ceiling increase. During a Saturday briefing with House Republicans, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) announced his plan to push for a more than $3 trillion deficit reduction package that would raise the debt ceiling in increments, by $900 billion at first and then by about $1.6 trillion next year. The White House and Democratic leaders have ruled out any type of short-term extension out of concerns that it would create uncertainty in financial markets and expose the already fragile economy to greater risks.
Reid called the GOP plan "a non-starter in the Senate and with the President." He and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) huddled with President Barack Obama on Sunday night, just before Reid unveiled the latest Democratic plan.
Pelosi embraced Reid's proposal in a statement after their meeting.
"I applaud Senator Reid for putting forward an approach to reduce the deficit that protects Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries," she said.
With pressure mounting on Congress and the White House to ensure the government doesn't default on its debt, the latest Democratic offering shows just how much party leaders have compromised during the negotiations as Republicans have held their ground. For weeks, Democrats demanded that any substantial package include revenues to offset spending cuts, namely by closing corporate tax loopholes and ending subsidies for the oil and gas industry. But their demands have now been whittled away to a proposal coming from their own party with major cuts and no revenue at all.
Republicans, meanwhile, have largely gotten what they wanted in their push for significant spending cuts without new revenue.
Negotiators are running out of time to reach a deal by August 2, the day the government is expected to run out of money to pay its bills and send the United States into default. And even if lawmakers are able to pull off an eleventh-hour deal that averts that scenario, credit rating agencies have already warned lawmakers that the United States may still have its credit rating downgraded as a result of the protracted debate over the debt limit. If that were to occur, Americans would face higher interest rates on their credit cards, student loans and mortgages.
I'm as angry as you are! It is outrageous that the republicans don't think revenue needs to be part of the solution, particularly when you see something like this:
Somebody please explain to me why someone in the top one tenth of a percent should pay 15% in income taxes while I, who earns less than $100K, pays in the 25% bracket. Requiring the top one tenth of a percent to pay 25% would increase revenue by approximately $85.1 Billion. Never mind the others in the top 1% to 10% of the income scale.
Unbelievable, both democrats and republicans should be ashamed of themselves, particularly Beohner. Disgusting!
I'm as angry as you are! It is outrageous that the republicans don't think revenue needs to be part of the solution, particularly when you see something like this:
Somebody please explain to me why someone in the top one tenth of a percent should pay 15% in income taxes while I, who earns less than $100K, pays in the 25% bracket. Requiring the top one tenth of a percent to pay 25% would increase revenue by approximately $85.1 Billion. Never mind the others in the top 1% to 10% of the income scale.
Unbelievable, both democrats and republicans should be ashamed of themselves, particularly Beohner. Disgusting!
I might be missing something, but that link you supplied doesn't say anything about the top 0.1% paying 15% in income taxes.
Furthermore, if I'm reading this link correctly, it says the top tax bracket pays 35%.
end participation in three wars and it is no longer a problem.
The previous U.S government started two of these wars, and in the process ransacked 2 sovereign nations, unleashing sectarian violence and massive instability.
And now that you have economic troubles at home your answer is abandon these countries to their fate?
Not cool. You need to fix the mess you created before simply jumping ship.
Starting a war isn't the same as gatecrashing a party and then slipping out through the back door as soon as someone spills red wine all over the carpet.
I want no complaints from you when bad intel takes out an Afghan family in a predator drone strike then. Fixing it means that collateral damage will occur from time to time.
Also, how do you propose fixing it?
Apparently and according to lots of posters on this forum, killing the enemy only creates more enemies and terrorists.
Next, you have a religion that is split into two groups that like each other about as much as they like the U.S. military.
Leaders pushing for progress have to worry about being assassinated by their own trusted body guards and friends.
And one last question, how "sovereign" was Afghanistan under Taliban rule prior to 9/11?
I'm as angry as you are! It is outrageous that the republicans don't think revenue needs to be part of the solution, particularly when you see something like this:
Somebody please explain to me why someone in the top one tenth of a percent should pay 15% in income taxes while I, who earns less than $100K, pays in the 25% bracket. Requiring the top one tenth of a percent to pay 25% would increase revenue by approximately $85.1 Billion. Never mind the others in the top 1% to 10% of the income scale.
Unbelievable, both democrats and republicans should be ashamed of themselves, particularly Beohner. Disgusting!
I might be missing something, but that link you supplied doesn't say anything about the top 0.1% paying 15% in income taxes.
Furthermore, if I'm reading this link correctly, it says the top tax bracket pays 35%.
Good call and nice link. I should have been clearer in my "rant." The wealthiest one tenth of one percent earn the vast majority of their wealth via investment income, taxed at 15%, usually stock options as compensation or access to investment vehicles closed off to the rest of us. I earn the vast majority, almost all of it, via wages. Reagan's gift to the middle class was to cut investment earnings taxes and increase taxes on wages. The republicans have continued the policy with slightly smaller tax cuts on wages, remember, just go shopping?, but much larger cuts in investment income taxes. Try as I might, I can't switch the dynamic for me personally, as much as I would like to. Doesn't the disparity in growth of income and corporate profits versus average wage growth bother you, particularly when compared to other countries? Bottom line for me is that there needs to be revenue as part of the solution to the debt/budget crisis and the top one tenth of one percent can afford to kick in more than they currently do. Anything less is a disgrace.
I'm as angry as you are! It is outrageous that the republicans don't think revenue needs to be part of the solution, particularly when you see something like this:
Somebody please explain to me why someone in the top one tenth of a percent should pay 15% in income taxes while I, who earns less than $100K, pays in the 25% bracket. Requiring the top one tenth of a percent to pay 25% would increase revenue by approximately $85.1 Billion. Never mind the others in the top 1% to 10% of the income scale.
Unbelievable, both democrats and republicans should be ashamed of themselves, particularly Beohner. Disgusting!
I might be missing something, but that link you supplied doesn't say anything about the top 0.1% paying 15% in income taxes.
Furthermore, if I'm reading this link correctly, it says the top tax bracket pays 35%.
Good call and nice link. I should have been clearer in my "rant." The wealthiest one tenth of one percent earn the vast majority of their wealth via investment income, taxed at 15%, usually stock options as compensation or access to investment vehicles closed off to the rest of us. I earn the vast majority, almost all of it, via wages. Reagan's gift to the middle class was to cut investment earnings taxes and increase taxes on wages. The republicans have continued the policy with slightly smaller tax cuts on wages, remember, just go shopping?, but much larger cuts in investment income taxes. Try as I might, I can't switch the dynamic for me personally, as much as I would like to. Doesn't the disparity in growth of income and corporate profits versus average wage growth bother you, particularly when compared to other countries? Bottom line for me is that there needs to be revenue as part of the solution to the debt/budget crisis and the top one tenth of one percent can afford to kick in more than they currently do. Anything less is a disgrace.
if you have a rate increase on capital gains you will see a massive sell off just before it goes into affect. After the rate increase if would be a while before you started to see any revenue increases if you saw any. the CBO has said it is almost impossible to predict what rate changes will do to revenue...But investing in companies is what we want to encourage, and in order to get the 15% capital gains tax you are required to make a longer term investment in a business in order to not get hit with a simple income tax rate...Long term investments should be encouraged, and one way to encourage them is to keep rates low. Higher rate doesn't always mean more tax revenue.
A one time tax of wealth of those worth more than 10 million dollars could go a long way to paying down the national debt, but would you support such a policy? But what would happen when you grab the wealth? Would it be replaced by the rich making more? at what cost?
Simply raising taxes does not necessarily raise revenue. the only sure fire way to raise revenue is get the god damn economy humming...I think we both agree that getting the economy going would be best for everyone, poor and rich alike...
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
When will it be enough? I am not for raising it, end participation in three wars and it is no longer a problem.
I'll repeat this again. When will it be enough? Let's say we raise the limit. We are going to be back in this same mess in another year or two. Should we keep raising it? Where do we draw the line?
I draw the line right now. BOTH parties have been kicking the can down the road to the next Congress. Reid's plan cuts only $200 billion/year for 10 years. That is pathetic. We can cut $1.6 trillion by ripping up the bill we "owe" the Fed.
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Getting rid of the Fed is an even better solution.
President Obama's conduct during the debate over the debt ceiling has divided the country and will inflict damage that will last well after the battle is over, former New York Stock Exchange director Ken Langone said.
Comments
Peace.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
disgusting motherfucker.
if we are "out of money" like he just said we are, he has to raise revenue. there is no other way around it. if he really believes what he just said, then this situation is not as dire as he is claiming it to be...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
And to think that all of this could be solved simply by cutting back on military spending...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14258888
Republican House Speaker John Boehner quits debt talks
'...As well as cutting $650bn from Medicare, Medicaid and other entitlements, the president said he was offering to slash $1tr in discretionary spending, while seeking $1.2tr in revenues, which could have been achieved by raising income tax rates...
Mr Boehner said they had been close to a deal until Mr Obama had demanded $400bn in tax increases on top of about $800bn in revenues that would have been reaped through a comprehensive rewrite of the tax code...
Republicans have been unwilling to consider raising new taxes to counter the growing budget deficits.
The Democrats have been opposed to cutting popular healthcare and welfare programmes for pensioners and the poor.'
it is a necessity to pass it now.
if you conservatives are willing to stick to idealogy over all and deny this from passing and send us back into a depression you all deserve what happens.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
i can not put into words how angry i am right now!!
he caved again with a final offer to cut more spending than the gop wanted and NO REVENUES....
Reid Pitches Final Deficit Deal Without Revenues
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/2 ... 08221.html
WASHINGTON -- After another round of failed negotiations with Republicans over the weekend, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Sunday night laid out Democratic leaders' latest — and likely final — proposal for a deficit reduction deal: $2.7 trillion in cuts, a debt ceiling hike through the end of 2012 and no revenues.
The proposal "meets Republicans' two major criteria," Reid said in a statement. It includes enough spending cuts to meet or exceed the amount of a debt ceiling raise through the end of 2012, and it doesn't includes any of the new revenues Democrats have been pushing for.
"We hope Speaker Boehner will abandon his 'my way or the highway' approach, and join us in forging a bipartisan compromise along these lines," Reid said.
The Nevada Democrat said talks broke down again on Sunday night as Republican leaders insisted on passing a short-term debt ceiling increase. During a Saturday briefing with House Republicans, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) announced his plan to push for a more than $3 trillion deficit reduction package that would raise the debt ceiling in increments, by $900 billion at first and then by about $1.6 trillion next year. The White House and Democratic leaders have ruled out any type of short-term extension out of concerns that it would create uncertainty in financial markets and expose the already fragile economy to greater risks.
Reid called the GOP plan "a non-starter in the Senate and with the President." He and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) huddled with President Barack Obama on Sunday night, just before Reid unveiled the latest Democratic plan.
Pelosi embraced Reid's proposal in a statement after their meeting.
"I applaud Senator Reid for putting forward an approach to reduce the deficit that protects Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries," she said.
With pressure mounting on Congress and the White House to ensure the government doesn't default on its debt, the latest Democratic offering shows just how much party leaders have compromised during the negotiations as Republicans have held their ground. For weeks, Democrats demanded that any substantial package include revenues to offset spending cuts, namely by closing corporate tax loopholes and ending subsidies for the oil and gas industry. But their demands have now been whittled away to a proposal coming from their own party with major cuts and no revenue at all.
Republicans, meanwhile, have largely gotten what they wanted in their push for significant spending cuts without new revenue.
Negotiators are running out of time to reach a deal by August 2, the day the government is expected to run out of money to pay its bills and send the United States into default. And even if lawmakers are able to pull off an eleventh-hour deal that averts that scenario, credit rating agencies have already warned lawmakers that the United States may still have its credit rating downgraded as a result of the protracted debate over the debt limit. If that were to occur, Americans would face higher interest rates on their credit cards, student loans and mortgages.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
The previous U.S government started two of these wars, and in the process ransacked 2 sovereign nations, unleashing sectarian violence and massive instability.
And now that you have economic troubles at home your answer is abandon these countries to their fate?
Not cool. You need to fix the mess you created before simply jumping ship.
Starting a war isn't the same as gatecrashing a party and then slipping out through the back door as soon as someone spills red wine all over the carpet.
ending the 3 wars will not solve the problems right now. the reason you have to raise the debt ceiling is not for just future spending its for paying the bills for services you already got. basically what you are saying is that you have decided to not pay your visa cuase you don't like how much money your paying. both democrats and reb> are idiots. i really hope they smarten up cause i would hate to see what will happen if they don't.
I'm as angry as you are! It is outrageous that the republicans don't think revenue needs to be part of the solution, particularly when you see something like this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sp ... y/?hpid=z4
Somebody please explain to me why someone in the top one tenth of a percent should pay 15% in income taxes while I, who earns less than $100K, pays in the 25% bracket. Requiring the top one tenth of a percent to pay 25% would increase revenue by approximately $85.1 Billion. Never mind the others in the top 1% to 10% of the income scale.
Unbelievable, both democrats and republicans should be ashamed of themselves, particularly Beohner. Disgusting!
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I might be missing something, but that link you supplied doesn't say anything about the top 0.1% paying 15% in income taxes.
Furthermore, if I'm reading this link correctly, it says the top tax bracket pays 35%.
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
I could be wrong. If I am, please correct me.
for the least they could possibly do
Also, how do you propose fixing it?
Apparently and according to lots of posters on this forum, killing the enemy only creates more enemies and terrorists.
Next, you have a religion that is split into two groups that like each other about as much as they like the U.S. military.
Leaders pushing for progress have to worry about being assassinated by their own trusted body guards and friends.
And one last question, how "sovereign" was Afghanistan under Taliban rule prior to 9/11?
Good call and nice link. I should have been clearer in my "rant." The wealthiest one tenth of one percent earn the vast majority of their wealth via investment income, taxed at 15%, usually stock options as compensation or access to investment vehicles closed off to the rest of us. I earn the vast majority, almost all of it, via wages. Reagan's gift to the middle class was to cut investment earnings taxes and increase taxes on wages. The republicans have continued the policy with slightly smaller tax cuts on wages, remember, just go shopping?, but much larger cuts in investment income taxes. Try as I might, I can't switch the dynamic for me personally, as much as I would like to. Doesn't the disparity in growth of income and corporate profits versus average wage growth bother you, particularly when compared to other countries? Bottom line for me is that there needs to be revenue as part of the solution to the debt/budget crisis and the top one tenth of one percent can afford to kick in more than they currently do. Anything less is a disgrace.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
if you have a rate increase on capital gains you will see a massive sell off just before it goes into affect. After the rate increase if would be a while before you started to see any revenue increases if you saw any. the CBO has said it is almost impossible to predict what rate changes will do to revenue...But investing in companies is what we want to encourage, and in order to get the 15% capital gains tax you are required to make a longer term investment in a business in order to not get hit with a simple income tax rate...Long term investments should be encouraged, and one way to encourage them is to keep rates low. Higher rate doesn't always mean more tax revenue.
A one time tax of wealth of those worth more than 10 million dollars could go a long way to paying down the national debt, but would you support such a policy? But what would happen when you grab the wealth? Would it be replaced by the rich making more? at what cost?
Simply raising taxes does not necessarily raise revenue. the only sure fire way to raise revenue is get the god damn economy humming...I think we both agree that getting the economy going would be best for everyone, poor and rich alike...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I'll repeat this again. When will it be enough? Let's say we raise the limit. We are going to be back in this same mess in another year or two. Should we keep raising it? Where do we draw the line?
I draw the line right now. BOTH parties have been kicking the can down the road to the next Congress. Reid's plan cuts only $200 billion/year for 10 years. That is pathetic. We can cut $1.6 trillion by ripping up the bill we "owe" the Fed.
President Obama's conduct during the debate over the debt ceiling has divided the country and will inflict damage that will last well after the battle is over, former New York Stock Exchange director Ken Langone said.
Full Story:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/43924372