CASH FOR VOTES
 

Isn't that basically what O'bama has now done with this $40 payroll tax reduction.... He seems like he's positioning himself now to win.. :smash:

that's his JOB
Honesty ain't got
NUTHIN to do with it.

Maybe it wasn't so much about the payroll tax reduction--the House bill would have extended it for a full year. The Senate bill that he favored only extended it for two months. But the House bill also required a decision on the oil pipe line from Canada in 60 days instead of a year, which would lose points for him from his environmentalist constituents. So, yeah, you're right, getting the Senate bill, which he wanted, rather than the House bill, makes him look strong, like a winner, giving him a bit of cred to win. But it's a loser for those who want the tax reduction to be more secure. It's interesting that Obama said that passing the bill would save a family with about $50,000/yr income about $1000. Actually, the House bill, which he didn't want, would do that, since it extended the tax reduction for a year. The Senate bill that passed with his approval and support, only saves that family $160 for the two months that the reduction would last.

It was a band-aid but it's a shame they have to pass a two month bill. Just shows how dysfunctional Congress really is.

That being said, the Speaker didn't end up looking so good.

-spence

Dems finally got one back.

Welfare right?
 

When you said cash for votes I swore this would be a thread about welfare

"Cash for votes" by: *insert any politician's name here*

Let's be real... every politician panders and allots funds to those that vote for them.

And he is being rebuked by some conservative radio talk hosts. And a lot of this type of disagreement occurs on con talk radio, which belies your idea that the con talk is all about stroking the listeners and reassuring that they are fine just as they are, and doesn't challenge them.

Now now now, I never said that's what it was ALL about. I would expect Rush and others to go after Republicans who barter with Obama...If he really is trying to undermine what it means to be an American, there can be no quarter...

-spence

JUST THINK

now his royal highness can take his long awaited Hawaii vacation

Hey what's another $5 million dollars to the taxpayers.........

How is this dysfunctional? The Senate passed a bill that the President wanted and the House passed it as well. Isn't that what everyone wants? Bipartisanship? Isn't this how it was in the good old days when the gummint was creating the "Great Society" and the Dems were controlling the agenda and bills were passed with the cooperation of "reasonable" Repubs? Hasn't the problem always been obstructionist, do-nothing Republicans standing in the way of progress? This is beautiful stuff, the way it's supposed to be, Dems propose, Repubs roll.

Did you always call it the "gummint?"

Probably would have been better to lower taxes on millionaires.

I hope The President has a great vacation. After spending a year dealing with those Republican peices of #^&#^&#^&#^&..he deserves it.

Only in those rare moments when I referred to it affectionately.

Classy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's a payroll tax deduction. So it only goes to wage and salary earners, not people who receive money from trust funds or investments.
People who receive money from trusts and investments enjoy a much more favorable tax rate than wage and salary earners already.
For example, a trust fund baby who gets 500K a year for winning the birth lottery, pays about half the tax that a doctor who works at a hospital and makes 500K a year in salary does.

It's not a lottery. It's not luck. Those born into wealth receive it as a result of the work and planning of their ancestors. That doctor who is making 500K/yr, if he has a family, is probably investing in various schemes and trusts that will, hopefully, secure his children. Perhaps the recipients born into this invested wealth should pay the same tax rate as those who receive a payroll check. But they shouldn't have that wealth confiscated or neutralized as some more radical "egalitarians" would like in order to "level the playing field." And it is probably not economically prudent to raise the tax rate on investments. That is, if we believe those investments are part of the working capital to start and fund business. And as for investment for bettering the lives of one's children--that is one of the greatest motivations for working beyond the subsistance level. Removing that desire to satisfy the conflicting desire to level outcomes would, in my opinion, create a stagnant, collapsing economy of a class of "workers" and entitlement owners who live for the moment and save and care for nothing more.

I would think that lowering rates for everyone rather than raising rates on some, and restricting government spending to "pay for it," would infuse the economy with motivation and growth.

Absolutely.There's no such thing as conservative or liberal money.Money likes both parties equally.

UGH

Gallup: Obama job approval surges - POLITICO.com

The GOP dug themselves a big hole.

NEED ANOTHER TRILLION? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAA

Obama to ask for debt limit hike: Treasury official - Yahoo! News

You better just that $40 in to Romney or Newt then. Since you don't want it.

This is the Right's kind of deal. Tax break for those who are working. If O'bama had done anything different, Scott, you would have been all over him for obstructing this.

He could start #^&#^&#^&#^&ting gold and giving it to the treasury dept to counteract spending and you'd find fault with his brand of TP...

your right. he should be impeached for the bull#^&#^&#^&#^& he's pulled so far.

Don't matter how much Lysol you use when you got a rotten poo it still stinks.

Only problem is nobody will stand up and say it or do anything about it :smash:

You honestly think this country is better off today with him than it was without him?

Every word out of his mouth is a LIE. Done to suit his preferences.

And his preference is to party every day, take 7 vacations a month, 15 rounds of golf all while this country goes into the #^&#^&#^&#^&ter.

he is a train wreck that already happened

it makes no difference what his party affiliation is...
or that he's Black or ANYTHING else....

he's terrible! no matter "how" you look at it....

yeah..that's realistic....:uhuh:


Obama to ask for debt limit hike: Treasury official

WASHINGTON | Tue Dec 27, 2011

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House plans to ask Congress by the end of the week for an increase in the government's debt ceiling to allow the United States to pay its bills on time, according to a senior Treasury Department official on Tuesday.

President Barack Obama is expected to ask for authority to increase the borrowing limit by $1.2 trillion, part of the spending authority that was negotiated between Congress and the White House this summer.

The debt limit currently stands at $15.194 trillion and would increase to $16.394 trillion with the request.

(Reporting By Margaret Chadbourn; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama)

May I add the philantropic programs that the wealthy have added to
our culture. Monies donated to hospitals and all kinds of charities. Rockefeler saved
l,000's of acres for Yellowstone and 10's of thousands of acres spanning
from New York City to the Adirondacks. Dupont has donated over 34,000
acres for conservation since 1994. On and on.

There are a lot of sour grapes and jealousies toward the rich that the Politcians
use to their advantage to divide. I have nothing against people who have aquired
wealth through hard work and sacrafices creating companies and jobs for
millions.
The people I have met with "old money" I've found are very gratious and
friendly, some of the "new money" people have attitude problems, but I still
don't resent them having earned their wealth.
River

Saw a nicely simplified view of the US "Budget" (We should be using that term very loosely):

http://i.imgur.com/rIrrH.jpg

Great chart JD, one Big G wouldn't want you to see.

Waay to simple, they don't want you to see something that simple
just want to snow you with complicated BS.

The whole budget situation becomes mythical to the average person when trillions, millions, billions are thrown around. The typical American doesn't comprehend how much money that actually is.

I'm glad I found that image. I appreciate the way it related our national debt to credit card debt. With it is put simply like that, we should now be asking the people of this nation: "How stable financially is a family that has credit card debt equal to 7 times their income?" When put into simple, relative terms like that, it is easy to comprehend how dire our national debt situation is... and why a surplus budget is required, along with *every* American having to make sacrifices.

There would also have to be a guarantee that the surplus would go to paying down the debt. It has been a long, long time since the debt has been reduced, even in times of budget "surplus." Congress has this inevitable tic that requires all money to be spent so that whatever does go toward debt payment is never enough to reduce it and it constantly grows. If the annual budgets were honest, they would include the debt as part of the budget just as your chart does. But, then, the pols could not maintain power by "giving" us stuff, and the people could instantly see, by looking at a real, total budget, rather than the so-called "annual" budget, that they were not being given anything. Rather that they were being forced to pay very dearly for the trinkets. And, if we were taught throughout the 12 year captivity in public schools that the Federal Gvt. is not supposed to have the power to spend our money on things not enumerated in the Constitution, and that we, in our various States and localities, have the power to spend or not spend within those unenumerated powers, we would have more control and responsibility toward keeping "budgets" within reason and ability to pay.

Of course, the Constitution is a dead letter that no-one follows anymore. So then, the problem becomes "revenue" and "spending." What's the best way to get budget surplus revenue and how to control congressional spending. Taxing is problematic. At what point does it hamper growth in the "economy"? Is economic growth the best way to garner Federal revenue? As for spending--good luch with that.

Another qoute on the debt to make things simple for us simple folk,

"We've saved the American Taxpayer about 17 Hours
of spending. That's it."
-Reid Ribble, R. Wisc.

SOME MORE cash for votes........

Analysis: U.S. fighter sales soar in time for campaign - Yahoo! News

Wonder if they need any fishing lures :hee:

"...supporting more than 50,000 U.S. jobs at a time of high unemployment...

The program involves roughly 600 suppliers in 44 of the 50 U.S. states and give the economy a $3.5 billion annual boost...
'This will support jobs not only in the aerospace sector but also in our manufacturing base and support chain, which are all crucial for sustaining our national defense,' he said."

After reading the article, I don't know what to say Scott other than, if you can't support this, there is absolutely nothing related to the Obama admin. that you would support.

Didn't say I didn't support it

I do....cept he's going to cash in for his campaign. He's going to use it for all it's worth. I bet they been working on that since before Barry...and that this is another of his "free" grabs I'm the king of hope and change.

And none of this gets going for another 2 years......so it's FLUFF in the jar right now.

hocus pocus :wave:

I doubt it will factor in all that much.

But the fact it's approved will keep a lot of defense industry employees employed. The entire aero defense supply chain is scrambling to rework their cost structures right now. Contract like these have a tremendous trickle down effect.

-spence

I don't think anyone has ever really called for policy that will remove the desire to work beyond the sustenance level. As long as there's an upside people will try and achieve it, just like the Market...they'll simply go for the best available deal.

I'd also take issue with the idea that success isn't based somewhat on luck. That's not to say that talent, effort and risk taking doesn't increase the chances to get lucky...but ultimately luck is always involved to some degree, especially in new small businesses that don't have the luxury of a proven conservative business model.

Entrepreneurs are certainly a critical component of our economy, but they would be impotent without the sacrifices made throughout society to defend our freedoms, labor in unsafe mines to provide our electricity, work endless hours at low wages to keep services and factories running etc...

Ultimately any fortune, large or small, is built on the backs of others.

-spence

Spence very negative way of looking at it,
typical Liberal "poor me thinking."

I would say any fortune, large or small, is built on the opportunities
provided by others.
Very few grateful for what others have provided for them.