CASH FOR VOTES

[UserRemoved1]

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..

[Raven]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&

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..

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.

[spence]

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

[striperman36]

Dems finally got one back.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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

-spence

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.


-spence

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.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

the good old days when the gummint was creating the

Did you always call it the "gummint?"

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Did you always call it the "gummint?"

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

[Swimmer]

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

[UserRemoved1]

Gwen's Take: In Case You Were Wondering, We Have Been Here Before | The Rundown News Blog | PBS NewsHour | PBS

[JohnnyD]

"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.

[basswipe]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

"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.

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

[UserRemoved1]

JUST THINK

now his royal highness can take his long awaited Hawaii vacation

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

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&

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..

Probably would have been better to lower taxes on millionaires.

[Duke41]

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

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by Duke41

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

Classy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Joe]

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Joe

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.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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 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

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

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.

Speaking from professional experience, most employers look to get just what they need from an employee without paying them a dime more than they have to. It's the rare example that actually seeks -- talking corporate culture here -- to get the most out of the people they have.

This isn't liberalism, if anything it's Econ 101.

Some corporate leaders are actually good stewards of their own ships. I wish more were...but we have a corporate culture today that doesn't often punish failure at the top. I guess it's a lot like Congress.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by justplugit

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.

Exactly. I was busy answering Spences response to me while you were posting this, so I didn't see your good words here until I posted mine. You said it better.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by 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.

Didn't say anyone ever called for such policy. The "context" (to put it in Spencerian terms) that I mention subsistance level, is securing a better life for one's children as ONE of the greatest motivations to work beyond that level. I neither stated nor implied that there are no other motivating factors. My response, after all, was about those (children) being born into wealth not being winners of a lottery.

And, BTW, there have ever been policies that thwarted the desire to work beyond subsistence by crushing that desire. Slavery abounded in the past and still exists now, slavery much more crushing than the American form. And not too long before China's current attempt to introduce capitalism into its society, they had a strict subsistence level instituted for all but communist party higher ups. I had a Chinese-American friend who visited the mainland about 30 years ago and saw a system in which everyone was paid $80/mo regardles of occupation, and they could not move from the locality they were born in unless their profession was in short supply elsewhere such as a doctor.

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.

Who are you taking issue with here? I was, again, speaking about the INHERITORS of wealth, not the parents who created that wealth, however they got it. And I would state your double negative in its absolute positive--talent, effort, and risk taking DO increase the chances to get lucky, and without those qualities, in most cases, luck will pass you by. And if luck is always involved to some degree, then it is an unavoidable constant that we all have to deal with. And dealing with it by applying effort and risk taking is the surest way to succeed. By far, the greatest factor in success is the effort to apply talent, will, perseverance, against all risks. And, let's not forget, failure is more abundant than success, so the willingness to make the effort and take the risk deserves far more credit than the fickle luck we are all prone to.

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...

What's your point here? Are entrepeneurs separate from those who sacrifice throughout society to defend our freedoms, who labor, who work endless hours (and yes, many work on a small dime in the beginning)? And are they any more "impotent" than those who depend on them to provide the labor and create opportunities for economic freedom from the poverty seen in societies bereft of entrepeneurs? They are not merely a "critical component" of our "economy," they are its creator.

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

-spence

Ah, I get it now. Your point is just to "stir the pot" as you like to say. Your smart and crafty enough to know that trope "on the backs of others" is meant to be inflammatory, a call to decry those wealthy s.o.b.'s. How about "the backs of others" depends on the "brains and effort of others" for sustenance?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Didn't say anyone ever called for such policy. The "context" (to put it in Spencerian terms) that I mention subsistance level, is securing a better life for one's children as ONE of the greatest motivations to work beyond that level. I neither stated nor implied that there are no other motivating factors. My response, after all, was about those (children) being born into wealth not being winners of a lottery.

I think that's more valid from the top down but less so from the bottom up. As far as the kids are concerned one has opportunity that the other doesn't.

And, BTW, there have ever been policies that thwarted the desire to work beyond subsistence by crushing that desire. Slavery abounded in the past and still exists now, slavery much more crushing than the American form. And not too long before China's current attempt to introduce capitalism into its society, they had a strict subsistence level instituted for all but communist party higher ups. I had a Chinese-American friend who visited the mainland about 30 years ago and saw a system in which everyone was paid $80/mo regardles of occupation, and they could not move from the locality they were born in unless their profession was in short supply elsewhere such as a doctor.

Your use of slavery is a bit inflammatory no? I don't know of anyone in present day America who feels they are enslaved.

Who are you taking issue with here? I was, again, speaking about the INHERITORS of wealth, not the parents who created that wealth, however they got it. And I would state your double negative in its absolute positive--talent, effort, and risk taking DO increase the chances to get lucky, and without those qualities, in most cases, luck will pass you by. And if luck is always involved to some degree, then it is an unavoidable constant that we all have to deal with. And dealing with it by applying effort and risk taking is the surest way to succeed. By far, the greatest factor in success is the effort to apply talent, will, perseverance, against all risks. And, let's not forget, failure is more abundant than success, so the willingness to make the effort and take the risk deserves far more credit than the fickle luck we are all prone to.

There was no double negative, I completely agree that talent and effort increase the chances to get lucky or exploit that luck. But let's say you had two kids with equal talent and both were raised to be hard workers. The one lucky enough to have been born into a family with means is going to have a far better chance at success vs one who was not.

What's your point here? Are entrepeneurs separate from those who sacrifice throughout society to defend our freedoms, who labor, who work endless hours (and yes, many work on a small dime in the beginning)? And are they any more "impotent" than those who depend on them to provide the labor and create opportunities for economic freedom from the poverty seen in societies bereft of entrepeneurs? They are not merely a "critical component" of our "economy," they are its creator.

The point is that economics -- as you're well aware -- is about the relationship between capital and labor. Trickle up and trickle down are both valid but one doesn't work without the other...that's why I'm an economic convectionist

Ah, I get it now. Your point is just to "stir the pot" as you like to say. Your smart and crafty enough to know that trope "on the backs of others" is meant to be inflammatory, a call to decry those wealthy s.o.b.'s. How about "the backs of others" depends on the "brains and effort of others" for sustenance?

Not at all, I just find a discussion about entrepreneurs without the inclusion of those actually doing most of the work to be incomplete.

As for stirring the pot, I do make a mean risotto

-spence

[UserRemoved1]

UGH

Gallup: Obama job approval surges - POLITICO.com

[striperman36]

Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&

UGH

Gallup: Obama job approval surges - POLITICO.com

The GOP dug themselves a big hole.

[UserRemoved1]

NEED ANOTHER TRILLION? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAA

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