Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 81 to 84 of 84

Thread: Employers In US Start Bracing For Higher Tax Withholding

  1. #81
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,803

    Re: Employers In US Start Bracing For Higher Tax Withholding

    Quote Originally Posted by Barbbtx View Post
    Just another reason why Obamacare must be repealed.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.
    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.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  2. #82
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,989

    Re: Employers In US Start Bracing For Higher Tax Withholding

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    was based on a Republican bill floated during the Clinton administration.
    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.
    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.

  3. #83
    User Taboon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Minnesota
    Last Seen
    04-15-11 @ 10:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    135

    Re: Employers In US Start Bracing For Higher Tax Withholding

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    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 ****.
    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.

  4. #84
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    melbourne florida
    Last Seen
    09-24-15 @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,156

    Re: Employers In US Start Bracing For Higher Tax Withholding

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    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 ****.
    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

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •