|
CHANGE
|
recession Number two is around the corner
|
I need to get my SNAP credit card.
|
here's some more change.
Geithner: Taxes on ?Small Business? Must Rise So Government Doesn?t ?Shrink? | CNSnews.com I gotta sneeze....a...aaa......aaaaaaaa.....aaaaaaaa..... EFFU :hee: much better Where do they get these ideas out of a cracker jack box? What makes them think that small business can support this. UGH "Ellmers then said: “Sixty-four percent of jobs that are created in this country are for small business.” Geithner conceded the point, but then suggested the administration’s planned tax increase on small businesses would be “good for growth.”" CLASSIC. What a jackass. |
Makes sense...small businesses are typically owned by middle class...middle class can now get the health care that lower class can because of a glitch in the health care reform act...thus they have more money to turn over to the government...
...at least that is the government logic model in play... You fail if you expect logic from the vortex that is DC... |
May be a repeat but it's still good.
A Recession is when your neighbor loses his job.
A Depression is when you lose yours. A Recovery is when Obama loses his! |
Quote:
I'm talking plan, not Rick Perry style rhetoric.... |
Quote:
|
FB:
I'm disappointed in many things Obama has done. Lybia, for instance. Extending the Bush Tax cuts for another example. Would the economy be any better under McCain Palin? I don't think so. I was responding to a generic joke that the US economy will magically turn around when Obama doesn't get re-elected and wanted to know who from the other side (since it was clearly not a joke coming from a leftist position) has presented. If I had left Rick perry out (Who, as Scarborough said, is just running around doing a bad 1999 era GWB impersonation anyways) would the context have been less of a smear? As an independent, someone like Huntsman has some appeal to me, but I want to hear what any of them, will do to improve the economy. |
Fair enough, Bryan. I just get annoyed when people blindly defend Obama when he clearly isn't doing a good job (albeit he started in a tough spot). It's almost like they're afraid to admit that maybe they made a mistake. I'm not sure what any of the other candidates are planning in terms of fixing the budget, but I know that spending like a drunken sailor on leave isn't working.
|
Quote:
Walking out of meetings doesn't help either. The bi-partisian Simpson Bowles report came out with recommendations of cuts and taxes, both loopholes closing and raising some rates. The discussion here was that b/c both sides didn't love it, it was probably a good proposal. when the rubber hits the road, will both sides be able to compromise? |
I'm looking for a candidate who recognizes they work for us. Government has an insatialble appetite they need to be controlled. There is a lot that can be gained from fasting and prayer. Washington has outlawed God and gourges itself on our taxes.
Michael |
Quote:
Well, thats where we start to disagree at a really intrinsic level. I 100% support your ability to believe what you want and worship what you want, but keep it out of government! |
Quote:
|
to quote Obama:
Some days one term seems enough. |
Quote:
Quote:
We should cut taxes to ensure these free loaders can't buy food for their kids :devil2: -spence |
The unemployment rate is more than 100% higher than 4 years ago, so relatively 85% not so bad, is it?
|
HERE'S SOME GREAT CHANGE :kewl:
Barack Obama to ask New York governor Andrew Cuomo to be his 2012 running mate for vice president: sources - NYPOST.com One jackass gone is a good start. |
Obama: Public is 'sold' on tax increases in a debt-ceiling deal - TheHill.com
Your killin me. 80% of the people want a tax increase? SHOW ME JACKASS cuz I definitely don't believe your snake oil bull shat. |
Quote:
The poll actually said 20% thought the way to get their was ONLY through spending cuts. that means 80% think it needs at least a combo of taxes/spending |
I think people do support the bi-partisan debt commission that said a combination of factors was necessary to address the issue. So saying that they all agree with Obama is a stretch, but I think the number of people who want any tax increase off the table is pretty low.
What's absurd is that Reagan is held as the standard for supply side economics when he had no problem raising taxes when it was necessary...16 times. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Actually, here's the poll Obama was referencing...an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll.
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Se...2-24-28-11.pdf When asked if you support a surcharge tax on people making over a million dollars 55% found it totally acceptable and 25% found it mostly acceptable. Page 16. So, it does indeed look like the GOP is really out of step with the American people on their tax position in negotiation for raising the debt ceiling. -spence |
Quote:
Correct, he opens his mouth and all I hear is "EEYOORE, EEYOORE!" |
|
Quote:
-spence |
Quote:
By Sam Youngman and Alicia M. Cohn - 07/15/11 11:54 AM ET President Obama on Friday kept up the pressure on Republicans to agree to revenue increases in a deal to raise the debt ceiling, claiming 80 percent of the public supports Democrats' demand for tax increases. so let's see, page 16 of a poll of 1000 from February indicates that these (mostly non-millionaires I'm guessing) support a surcharge tax on people making over a million dollars 55% found it totally acceptable and 25% found it mostly acceptable. Shocking!!!! These 77% of 1000 from February allow Obama to claim that 80% of the Nation is with him, "the American Public Agrees...ahhhh...with ME!!!"......... unbelieveable....delusional...disturbing maybe he missed the Rasmussen report from the other day... 55% Oppose Tax Hike In Debt Ceiling Deal Thursday, July 14, 2011 As the Beltway politicians try to figure out how they will raise the debt ceiling and for how long, most voters oppose including tax hikes in the deal. Just 34% think a tax hike should be included in any legislation to raise the debt ceiling. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 55% disagree and say it should not. I guess somewhere between 80% and 34% lies the truth :uhuh: of course, Rasmussen is from July 14th and asked specifically about the debt ceiling and Obama's poll was plucked from a months old heap and the questions had nothing to do with the debt ceiling debate So, it does indeed look like the GOP is really out of step with the American people on their tax position in negotiation for raising the debt ceiling. -spence By a 59% to19% margin, Political Class voters favor a tax hike in the debt ceiling deal. By a 68% to 22% margin, Mainstream voters take the opposite view [/B] :uhuh::rtfm: 55% Oppose Tax Hike In Debt Ceiling Deal - Rasmussen Reports it does indeed??????????? looks like Obama is not only out of step but lying again Obama: Public is 'sold' on tax increases in a debt-ceiling deal claiming 80 percent of the public supports Democrats' demand for tax increases. :rotf2::rotf2: I wonder what %%%% of Americans would like Obama to find another job? :uhuh: |
tax weed
|
The two numbers are not the same.
One poll asks a very specific question about a tax increase only on people earning over 1 million. There's dramatic support for this. The other asks a very vague question about support for a "tax hike" which could imply raising taxes for everyone. The Rasmussen poll doesn't invalidate the NBC/WSJ poll. Rather it provides another perspective at a different point in time. I do think Obama is correct in asserting that the American people don't support the ideological position that *any* tax increase on anyone is off the table. -spence |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
again...the post that you referred to.... Obama: Public is 'sold' on tax increases in a debt-ceiling deal claiming 80 percent of the public supports Democrats' demand for tax increases. to which you replied stating that Obama was correct because he cited a poll from Feb. which you say indicated that 80% of Americans favor an increase on a tax on millionaires....and added "I think the number of people who want any tax increase off the table is pretty low." the poll completely contradicts the Obama headline/statement that you referred to...the Feb poll is outdated irrelevant drivel 55% Oppose Tax Hike In Debt Ceiling Deal Thursday, July 14, 2011 most voters oppose including tax hikes in the deal. Just 34% think a tax hike should be included in any legislation to raise the debt ceiling. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 55% disagree and say it should not. the "other" question(Rasmussen) was quite specific and included questions to determine how closely the respondents were actually following the debate.. "surely, clearly, obviously"...the reaches in your statements have become monumental I do think Obama is correct in asserting that the American people don't support the ideological position that *any* tax increase on anyone is off the table. -spence you continue to prove that you have no earthly idea of what the "American people" support....and if that statement is all that can be mustered to show Obama is correct about something...*anything*....yikes!!!! "the American People"...what's that like 80%?...60%?....40%? |
Quote:
-spence |
Quote:
don't worry Spence...things are really looking up for your HERO James Pethokoukis writing at Reuters quotes at length from a new report by Goldman Sachs that, he says, dropped an economic bomb on President Obama's chances for reelection." The report offers a doleful estimate for unemployment by election 2012 while advancing the possibility of a double dip recession: Following another week of weak economic data, we have cut our estimates for real GDP growth in the second and third quarter of 2011 to 1.5% and 2.5%, respectively, from 2% and 3.25%. Our forecasts for Q4 and 2012 are under review, but even excluding any further changes we now expect the unemployment rate to come down only modestly to 8¾% at the end of 2012. The main reason for the downgrade is that the high-frequency information on overall economic activity has continued to fall substantially short of our expectations. Pethokoukis concludes: Goldman Sachs doesn't have to tell you things are bad. I don't have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. EXCEPT SPENCE :rotf2: Unemployment is at 9.2 percent (11.4 percent if the official labor force hadn't collapsed since 2008 and 16.2 percent if you include discouraged and underemployed workers.) Moreover, the economy grew at just 1.9 percent in the first quarter of this year and may have grown less than 2 percent in the second. Wages and income are going nowhere fast. |
Quote:
-spence |
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch Spence, are you comfortable with a majority allowing the government to do to a minority what the majority will not accept be done to itself? Is this a form of mob rule? Is this a disregard of the constitutional protection of equality before the law? Does this ignore the Founder's intent to create a system of government that protects individuals from the tyranny of the majority? Detbuch, of course...he's routinely shown himself to be an advocate for nanny state progressive ideas remember this gem? "Perhaps if they made good decisions we wouldn't have so many people growing up with medical problems and adding to the cost of health care. While some of these stories are pretty silly, the only way to change the behavior of a large group is by forced modeling." -spence love that..."forced modeling"...opens a pandora's box doesn't it? :confused: |
Love this Guy
even if Spence ties to claim he's got a 3rd Grade education....or something
July 16, 2011 7:00 A.M. The Great Charade The spenders are negotiating among themselves how much debt they’re going to burden you with. There is something surreal and unnerving about the so-called “debt ceiling” negotiations staggering on in Washington. In the real world, negotiations on an increase in one’s debt limit are conducted between the borrower and the lender. Only in Washington is a debt increase negotiated between two groups of borrowers. Actually, it’s more accurate to call them two groups of spenders. On the one side are Obama and the Democrats, who in a negotiation supposedly intended to reduce American indebtedness are (surprise!) proposing massive increasing in spending (an extra $33 billion for Pell Grants, for example). The Democrat position is: You guys always complain that we spend spend spend like there’s (what’s the phrase again?) no tomorrow, so be grateful that we’re now proposing to spend spend spend spend like there’s no this evening. On the other side are the Republicans, who are the closest anybody gets to representing, albeit somewhat tentatively and less than fullthroatedly, the actual borrowers — that’s to say, you and your children and grandchildren. But in essence the spenders are negotiating among themselves how much debt they’re going to burden you with. It’s like you and your missus announcing you’ve set your new credit limit at $1.3 million, and then telling the bank to send demands for repayment to Mr. and Mrs. Smith’s kindergartner next door. Nothing good is going to come from these ludicrously protracted negotiations over laughably meaningless accounting sleights-of-hand scheduled to kick in circa 2020. All the charade does is confirm to prudent analysts around the world that the depraved ruling class of the United States cannot self-correct, and, indeed, has no desire to. When the 44th president took office, he made a decision that it was time for the already unsustainable levels of government spending finally to break the bounds of reality and frolic and gambol in the magical fairy kingdom of Spendaholica: This year, the federal government borrows 43 cents of every dollar it spends, a ratio that is unprecedented. Barack Obama would like this to be, as they say, “the new normal” — at least until that 43 cents creeps up a nickel or so, and the United States government is spending twice as much as it takes in, year in, year out, now and forever. If the Republicans refuse to go along with that, well, then the negotiations will collapse and, as he told Scott Pelley on CBS the other night, Gran’ma gets it. That monthly Social Security check? Fuhgeddabouddit. “I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue,” declared the president. “Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.” But hang on. I thought the Social Security checks came out of the famous “Social Security trust fund,” whose “trustees” assure us there’s currently $2.6 trillion in there. Which should be enough for the August 3rd check run, shouldn’t it? Golly, to listen to the president, you’d almost get the impression that, by the time you saw the padlock off the old Social Security lockbox, there’s nothing in there but a yellowing IOU and a couple of moths. Indeed, to listen to Obama, one might easily conclude that the whole rotten, stinking edifice of federal government is an accounting trick. And that can’t possibly be so, can it? For the Most Gifted Orator in Human History, the president these days speaks largely in clichés, most of which he doesn’t seem to be quite on top of. “Eric, don’t call my bluff,” he sternly reprimanded the GOP’s Eric Cantor. Usually, if you’re bluffing, the trick is not to announce it upfront. But, in fact, in his threat to have Granny eating dog food by Labor Day, Obama was calling his own bluff. The giant bluff against the future that is government spending. How many of “the wealthy” do you require to cover a one-and-a-half trillion-dollar shortfall every single year? When you need this big a fix, there aren’t enough people to stick it to. “We are not broke,” insists Van Jones, Obama’s former “green jobs” czar and bespoke Communist. “We were robbed, we were robbed. And somebody has our money!” The somebody who has our money is the government. They waste it on self-aggrandizing ideologue nitwits like Van Jones and his “green jobs” racket. How’s the “green jobs” scene in your town? Going gangbusters, is it? Every day these guys burn through so much that they can never bridge the gap. By that, I don’t mean that an American government that raises $2 trillion but spends $4 trillion has outspent America, but that it’s outspent the planet. In my soon to be imminently forthcoming book, I discuss a study published last year by John Kitchen of the U.S. Treasury and Menzie Chinn of the University of Wisconsin. Its very title is a testament to where we’re headed: “Financing U.S. Debt: Is There Enough Money In The World — And At What Cost?” The authors’ answer is yes, technically, there is enough money in the world — in the sense that, on current projections, by 2020 all it will take to finance the government of the United States is for the rest of the planet to be willing to sink 19 percent of its GDP into U.S. Treasury debt. Which Kitchen and Chinn say is technically doable. Yeah. In the same sense that me dating Scarlett Johansson is technically doable. Unfortunately, neither Scarlett nor the rest of the planet is willing to do it. It’s not 2020 and we’re not yet asking the rest of the planet for a fifth of its GDP. But already the world is imposing its own debt ceiling. Most of the debt issued by the Treasury so far this year has been borrowed from the Federal Reserve. That adds another absurd wrinkle to the D.C. charade: Washington is negotiating with itself over how much money to lend itself. Meanwhile, the World’s Greatest Orator bemoans the “intransigence” of Republicans. Okay, what’s your plan? Give us one actual program you’re willing to cut, right now. Oh, don’t worry, says Barack Obluffer. To demonstrate how serious he is, he’s offered to put on the table for fiscal year 2012 spending cuts of (stand well back now) $2 billion. That would be a lot in, say, Iceland or even Australia. Once upon a time it would have been a lot even in Washington. But today $2 billion is what the Brokest Nation in History borrows every ten hours. In other words, in less time than he spends sitting across the table negotiating his $2 billion cut, he’s already borrowed it all back. A negotiation with Obama is literally not worth the time. In order to fund Obamacare and the other opiates of Big Government dependency, the feds need to take 25 percent of GDP, now and forever: The “new normal.” It can’t be done. Look around you. The new normal’s already here: flatline jobs market, negative equity, the dead-parrot economy. What comes next will be profoundly abnormal. His name was Obamandias, King of Kings. Look upon his works, ye mighty, and despair. Round the decay of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare, the lone and level sands stretch far away. Do they still teach Shelley in high school? Or just the “diversity manual” about “social justice” the Omaha Public Schools paid for with $130,000 of “stimulus” funding? — Mark Steyn, |
sounds like a repeat of the fall of the Roman Empire
|
Quote:
Obama Plans Pricey Birthday Bash on Default Day Saturday, 16 Jul 2011 01:25 PM By Martin Gould and Abigail Walls As America’s poorest wait for Social Security checks that may never come on Aug. 3, President Barack Obama will be out celebrating a milestone birthday at a party where tickets cost up to $35,800 each. Obama has chosen the first day of the potential default to throw his 50th birthday bash, combining it with raising money for next year’s election. His actual birthday is Aug. 4. Oscar winner Jennifer Hudson is expected to perform at the birthday bash at the historic Aragon Ballroom in Chicago. The event will be one of the president’s biggest fundraisers of the year. Publicity literature featuring a red, white and blue Happy Birthday logo has already been produced. The event will be “multi-tiered,” the Chicago Sun-Times reported. The Hudson concert would cost $50; admission to the party $200; a premium seat $1,000; a souvenir photo with the president $10,000; and VIP seating and dinner with Obama $38,500. ........................ In 64, most of Rome was destroyed in the Great Fire of Rome, which many Romans believed Nero himself had started in order to clear land for his planned palatial complex, the Domus Aurea. Nero's rule is often associated with tyranny and extravagance. He is also infamously known as the emperor who "fiddled while Rome burned". Few surviving sources paint Nero in a favorable light. Some sources, though, including some mentioned above, portray him as an emperor who was popular with the common Roman people, especially in the East. Over the course of his reign, Nero often made rulings that pleased the lower class. Nero was criticized as being obsessed with being popular. "STIMULUS"Nero built a number of gymnasiums and theatres. Enormous gladiatorial shows were also held. Nero also established the quinquennial Neronia. The festival included games, poetry, and theater. Some questioned the large public expenditure on entertainment. In 64, Rome burned. Nero enacted a public relief effort as well as significant reconstruction. A number of other major construction projects occurred in Nero's late reign. Nero had the marshes of Ostia filled with rubble from the fire. He erected the large Domus Aurea. In 67, Nero attempted to have a canal dug at the Isthmus of Corinth. Ancient historians state that these projects and others exacerbated the drain on the State's budget. Nero devalued the Roman currency for the first time in the empire's history. The economic policy of Nero is a point of debate among scholars. According to ancient historians, Nero's construction projects were overly extravagant and the large number of expenditures under Nero left Italy "thoroughly exhausted by contributions of money" with "the provinces ruined." Modern historians, though, note that the period was riddled with deflation and that it is likely that Nero's spending came in the form of public works projects and charity intended to ease economic troubles. |
http://www.saltys.co/images/obama.jpg
Is THIS the change that everyone was hoping for? Huge deficit-cutting bill sails through GOP House - Yahoo! Finance We know Spence doesn't have a problem with taxes. He likes paying them :hee: A TRILLION EFFING DOLLARS. |
Salty,
I like the idea of higher taxes on those making more...It's the local solution to a national problem...kinda like property tax. We start out taxing those who make 1 million or more...when that does not work we reduce to raising taxes for those making 500K...pretty soon we are taxing more for those who make 50K. I propose we raise taxes for everyone who owns a house or a business. After all, they can afford that so apparently they have money to give to someone else who does not want to work. Perhaps we shoudl start with those who own blue houses... You said it best...it's all effed up. How about starting the Civil Conservation Corps back up and putting people back to work. Let them fix these crappy roads and sidewalks... |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:50 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com