• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Employers In US Start Bracing For Higher Tax Withholding

Deuce said:
Can you even tell me how much is spent on "earmarks?"
Click to expand...

Billions!!!

$11 billion in disclosed earmarks expected in fiscal year 2010 - TheHill.com


Congress is on pace to spend $11 billion on disclosed earmarks in fiscal year 2010, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense.

That’s about $4 billion less than last year’s cost of earmarks, which fund projects at the specific request of lawmakers. Disclosed earmarks totaled nearly $15 billion in fiscal year 2009, the groups said.
 
ptif219 said:
Billions!!!

$11 billion in disclosed earmarks expected in fiscal year 2010 - TheHill.com


Congress is on pace to spend $11 billion on disclosed earmarks in fiscal year 2010, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense.

That’s about $4 billion less than last year’s cost of earmarks, which fund projects at the specific request of lawmakers. Disclosed earmarks totaled nearly $15 billion in fiscal year 2009, the groups said.
Click to expand...

You realize this is about .3% of the budget, right? If someone tells you they want to balance the budget, ask them what programs they want to cut. If they don't say some combination of defense, medicare, and social security, they're full of ****.
 
Deuce said:
You realize this is about .3% of the budget, right? If someone tells you they want to balance the budget, ask them what programs they want to cut. If they don't say some combination of defense, medicare, and social security, they're full of ****.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, it sends the right message, and represents billions that wouldn't have to be cut from those other programs. Not to mention, a good part of what got us into this mess was lawmakers passing bill after bill that represented "only .X%" of the budget.
 
Deuce said:
You realize this is about .3% of the budget, right? If someone tells you they want to balance the budget, ask them what programs they want to cut. If they don't say some combination of defense, medicare, and social security, they're full of ****.
Click to expand...
Earmarks need to go because they are used as bribes to pass legislation. not because cutting them would save that much.


Here is a list of proposed cuts that almost 100% of the dems voted against and almost 100% of the Republicans voted for.
They are small, but would add up. None passed of course because the dems had the majority and they said NO!
If they were voting on tax hikes I'm sure they would have said yes.

I'm bolding the ones I think the dems will continue to block as long as they are still breathing.

Eric Cantor || Republican Whip || YouCut

Week One: Cut the New Non-Reformed Welfare Program ($25 Billion Savings)

Week Two: Eliminate Federal Employee Pay Raise ($30 Billion Savings)

Week Three: Reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ($30 Billion Savings)

Week Four: Sell Excess Federal Property ($15 Billion Savings)

Week Five: Prohibit Hiring New IRS Agents to Enforce Health Care Law ($15 Billion Savings)

Week Six: Taxpayer Subsidized Union Activities ($1.2 Billion Savings)

Week Seven: Prohibit Stimulus Funding for Promotional Signage (Tens of Millions)

Week Eight: Prohibit Sleeper Car Subsidies on Amtrak ($1.2 billion Savings)

Week Nine: Bipartisan Proposal to Terminate AEITC ($1.1 billion Savings)
 
Barbbtx said:
Just another reason why Obamacare must be repealed. We need to start over and assemble a new bill piece by piece. Hopefully with the help of both parties. Otherwise nothing will be done until 2012 with a Republican President.
Click to expand...

Dozens of Republican amendments made the bill, and the bill's substance was based on a Republican bill floated during the Clinton administration. There is no bill that the Democrats could have created that the Republicans would have accepted, because it was politically expedient for them to oppose the bill no matter what it was.

This is the group of people that largely voted against health care for 9/11 first responders in order to preserve the ability of corporations to use overseas tax shelters to hide from paying taxes in the US.
 
Deuce said:
was based on a Republican bill floated during the Clinton administration.
Click to expand...

Gahh, this keeps getting floated out there. Its amazing how well people take talking points that go up on a blog and spread like wild fire.

There was malpractice reform in 1993, not here. 1993 didn't turn 26 year old "children" into dependents, this one did. 1993 took steps for equalizing taxes for the self employed and didn't have lifetime spending caps, opposite of this one. 1993 didn't have a medicare expansion that was likely would cover more people than any other provision in the bill. Unlike today, the CBO took far longer to score bills in 1993 then it does currently. Once the Bill was actually scored it rapidly lost Republican support due to the financial impossability it presented. Even big name supporters that are trumpted out as proof the current health care law isn't far from what prominent republicans wanted, such as Bob Dole, quickly defected from support for the bill once the cost was determined. It also goes off the premise that this was THE Republican proposal in 1993 when in reality it was one of many, and none of them got truly large support. Finally, it lost the support primarily because rather than focusing on their ideas republicans purposefully added in Democrat points and views hoping to make it more "bipartisan" and appealing to both sides. It was not, like the current republican proposals, representetive of things simply liked by Republicans. And it was many of these bipartisan compromises that caused the bills cost to rise to a level that it lost almost all Republican support by the end anyways.

Not to mention the chart that the blogs used to start propogating this misrepresentation was incredibly vauge, using broad language with short "yes" and "no" type answeres. It'd be akin to saying "Attempted Welfare Reform" and saying "yes" under the Democrat Plan and the Republican Plan, without taking into consideration HOW they're doing it matters just as much as IF they're doing it.

Could we please, please stop pushing this ridiculous and inaccurate talking point?

And seriously love this hacky shot:

This is the group of people that largely voted against health care for 9/11 first responders in order to preserve the ability of corporations to use overseas tax shelters to hide from paying taxes in the US.
Click to expand...

Gotta love pathetic hyper partisan politics. Lets spin it the other way just like you're doing? This is the group that specifically put a controversial add on that had nothing to do with health care for 9/11 first responders, attempting to play political games with something so important and using the injured 9/11 first responders as tools for their political agenda.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
You realize this is about .3% of the budget, right? If someone tells you they want to balance the budget, ask them what programs they want to cut. If they don't say some combination of defense, medicare, and social security, they're full of ****.
Click to expand...

It's amazing how many people do not understand this. Sometimes it feels like 95% of the country does not get what you just stated.
 
Deuce said:
You realize this is about .3% of the budget, right? If someone tells you they want to balance the budget, ask them what programs they want to cut. If they don't say some combination of defense, medicare, and social security, they're full of ****.
Click to expand...

Limit the government to 17% of GDP that is a start. So your argument is earmarks are a small part so why stop them? Shows you don't care about the deficit
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom