Page 42 of 67 FirstFirst ... 32404142434452 ... LastLast
Results 411 to 420 of 666

Thread: House GOP blocks bill to extend jobless benefits

  1. #411
    Sage
    Lord Tammerlain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:24 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,432

    Re: House GOP blocks bill to extend jobless benefits

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Wrong, the invasion of Iraq occurred in March of 2003 and the expenses didn't hit until 2004. The Bush tax cuts raised govt. revenue. Canadians shouldn't try to re-write U.S. history.
    Wrong on the tax cuts


    Year revenue
    2001 1,991,426
    2002 1,853,395
    2003 1,782,532
    2004 1,880,279
    2005 2,153,859
    Notice the decrease in tax revenue for 2003 and that revenue for 2004 was still below that of 2001

    Please recall that I said 2003-2004 regarding the Iraq was as well
    Last edited by Lord Tammerlain; 11-22-10 at 12:17 AM.
    Happy Hanukkah Cheerfull Kwanzaa
    Happy Christmas Merry New Year Festivus for the rest of us

  2. #412
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,298

    Re: House GOP blocks bill to extend jobless benefits

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Tammerlain View Post
    Wrong on the tax cuts

    Notice the decrease in tax revenue for 2003 and that revenue for 2004 was still below that of 2001
    Source for those tax revenue numbers, here is what the Treasury has, all revenue

    2000 3,132
    2001 3,118
    2002 2,987
    2003 3,043
    2004 3,265
    2005 3,659
    2006 3,996
    2007 4,197
    2008 4,072

  3. #413
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,298

    Re: House GOP blocks bill to extend jobless benefits

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Tammerlain View Post
    Wrong on the tax cuts

    Notice the decrease in tax revenue for 2003 and that revenue for 2004 was still below that of 2001

    Please recall that I said 2003-2004 regarding the Iraq was as well
    The Bush tax rate cuts occurred in July 2003, prior to that there were rebates only and those didn't grow the economy. Again, Canadians shouldn't b trying to re-write U.S. history. You have enough of your own problems.

  4. #414
    Sage
    Lord Tammerlain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:24 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,432

    Re: House GOP blocks bill to extend jobless benefits

    My data is straight from here

    Budget of the United States Government: Historical Tables Fiscal Year 2007


    Using this link

    http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy...s/hist01z1.xls


    Iraq had a 57 billion dolllar effect on the 2003 budget

    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf


    and the 2003 tax cuts were retro active to Jan 1, 2003 and were applicable to the 2003 tax year

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_an...on_Act_of_2003

    The tax cuts enacted by this legislation were retroactive to January 1, 2003 and first applied to taxes filed for the 2003 tax year. These individual rate reductions are scheduled to sunset on January 1, 2011 along with the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 unless further legislation is enacted to make its changes permanent.[2] This comparison shows how the ordinary taxable income brackets for each filing status were changed
    Now what were you saying?
    Last edited by Lord Tammerlain; 11-22-10 at 12:52 AM.
    Happy Hanukkah Cheerfull Kwanzaa
    Happy Christmas Merry New Year Festivus for the rest of us

  5. #415
    Sage
    Lord Tammerlain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:24 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,432

    Re: House GOP blocks bill to extend jobless benefits

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Source for those tax revenue numbers, here is what the Treasury has, all revenue

    2000 3,132
    2001 3,118
    2002 2,987
    2003 3,043
    2004 3,265
    2005 3,659
    2006 3,996
    2007 4,197
    2008 4,072
    Now were did you get your numbers and what do they represent as most definatley the US government did not have revenues of 3.2 trillion dollars in 2004
    Happy Hanukkah Cheerfull Kwanzaa
    Happy Christmas Merry New Year Festivus for the rest of us

  6. #416
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,687

    Re: House GOP blocks bill to extend jobless benefits

    A tax cut, by Bush,and Congress, AFTER starting the Iraq war......how irresponsible is that? He should have raised taxes, instead.
    but it's OK, our grandchildren will pay for that, and the bailouts for Wall Street, and whatever else comes down the road....
    I sure hope our grandkids can get good paying jobs...oh, wait, today's college graduates are having a hard time finding a job.
    Damn that Obama dude, in only 2 years he failed to undo 8 years of Bush. Let's elect another republican in 2012, I hear Palin might run, that'll fix everything....maybe she can get some really old flake to be her VP. I hear John Boehner looks good in orange...
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  7. #417
    Sage
    Barbbtx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    W'Ford TX
    Last Seen
    11-10-12 @ 08:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,467

    Re: House GOP blocks bill to extend jobless benefits

    Quote Originally Posted by ender1 View Post
    because so many people keep saying "people are bad if they raise taxes" without realizing that today we have no other option to raise income. Wait until people realize that the new house plans to take away entitlements. You think people hate taxes going up wait until it takes money away from SS and medicare/medicade. Wonder how many would have gotten elected if they told people HOW they were going to balance the budget without raising taxes.
    You can only push some people so far before they'll take their money and run. A tax hike on the richest may be the last straw. They have enough money to pick up and leave the country if they want. These millionaires left the state and the tax hike backfired.


    Top Payers Fade Away
    Maryland Was Depending On Taxing Millionaires, But They're Disappearing
    May 14, 2009|By Laura Smitherman | Laura Smitherman,laura.smitherman@baltsun.com
    One of Maryland's budget-balancing tactics - asking millionaires to pay more money to the state - appears to be backfiring as the number of the highest-earning taxpayers dwindles with the flagging economy.
    A year ago, Maryland became one of the first states in the nation to create a higher tax bracket for millionaires as part of a broader package of maneuvers intended to help balance the state's finances and make the tax code more progressive.But as the state comptroller's office sifts through this year's returns, it is finding that the number of Marylanders with more than $1 million in taxable income who filed by the end of April has fallen by one-third, to about 2,000. Taxes collected from those returns as of last month have declined by roughly $100 million.Maryland Millionaire Tax - Top Payers Fade Away - Baltimore Sun
    Catawa is my favorite bleeding heart liberal.
    1/27/12

  8. #418
    Student
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    98053
    Last Seen
    04-19-15 @ 03:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    264

    Re: House GOP blocks bill to extend jobless benefits

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Top 10 deficits of all time

    Year | Deficit/Surplus | Rep/Dem President

    2009 | -1.4 TRILLION | DEM
    2010 | -1.35 TRILLION | DEM
    1943 | -669.396 BILLION | DEM
    1944 | -574.056 BILLION | DEM
    1945 | -561.204 BILLION | DEM
    2004 | -462.56 BILLION | REP
    2008 | -455 BILLION | REP
    1983 | -442.614 BILLION | REP
    1992 | -438.504 BILLION | REP
    2003 | -430.1 BILLION | REP


    Nope:

    year ending --- increase in national debt
    6/28/1946 ----- $10,739,911,763.33
    6/30/1945 ----- $57,678,800,188.80
    6/30/1944 ----- $64,307,296,891.23
    6/30/1943 ----- $64,273,645,213.68
    6/30/1942 ----- $72,422,445,116.22 ]



    Numbers found by subtracting the national dept at the beginning of fiscal year from the national debt at the end of the fiscal year. The national debt numbers are from:

    http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/

    Cut and paste into spreadsheet and do the math.

    The actual top 10:


    fiscal year ending ----- increase in national debt ----- budget passed under
    9/30/2009 ------------- $1,885,104,106,599.30 ---------- Bush/Obama
    9/30/2010 ------------- $1,651,794,027,380.00 ---------- Obama
    9/30/2008 ------------- $1,017,071,524,649.92 ---------- Bush
    9/30/2004 ------------- $595,821,633,586.70 ------------ Bush
    9/30/2006 ------------- $574,264,237,491.73 ------------ Bush
    9/30/2003 ------------- $554,995,097,146.46 ------------ Bush
    9/30/2005 ------------- $553,656,965,393.18 ------------ Bush
    9/30/2007 ------------- $500,679,473,047.25 ------------ Bush
    9/30/1991 ------------- $431,989,899,919.78 ------------ Bush(I)
    9/30/2002 ------------- $420,772,553,397.10 ------------ Bush

    The reason that the numbers are higher than the official budget is because the costs of the off budget items (i.e. wars) is included.

    Seems that the Bush family owns 9 of the top 10 biggest budget deficits.
    Last edited by zip98053; 11-22-10 at 02:08 AM.

  9. #419
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,773

    Re: House GOP blocks bill to extend jobless benefits

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Here are your so called Obama tax cuts?

    Obama Tax cuts

    Total: $288 billion

    Tax cuts for individuals

    Total: $237 billion
    $116 billion: New payroll tax credit of $400 per worker and $800 per couple in 2009 and 2010. Phaseout begins at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for joint filers.[29]
    Including in your monthly paycheck over 12-months. I'd say that's "putting more money back into taxpayer's pockets. Wouldn't you? "Allowing them to keep more of what they earn
    $70 billion: Alternative minimum tax: a one year increase in AMT floor to $70,950 for joint filers for 2009.[29]
    Shifted the level of the flat exemption upward. Meaning instead of being able to exempt earn income at say, $65,000 (or whatever the level was before the increase, you now have to earn MORE money in order to claim the AMT.
    $15 billion: Expansion of child tax credit: A $1,000 credit to more families (even those that do not make enough money to pay income taxes).
    You're talking about individuals who quite likely work in low-income jobs or work part-time. These individuals may not earn enough to pay into the federal income tax, but I'm sure many of them do pay state taxes. Regardless, I know for a fact that there are some people who fall in this category that DO have children. Now, I agree with your premise here, that if you don't pay "federal" income tax, why should you qualify for a "federal" tax credit? Problem here is, the states usually don't have this credit. So, in a sense the parent is being penalized for what? Having the exact same qualifier that millions of other people have but the only reason he/she is disqualified is because they didn't earn enough money? Yet, both the millionaire and the waitress have a "qualifying kid"? Does that make much sense to you? You qualify for the child tax credit not because you merely had a child but because you happened to earn enough money.
    $14 billion: Expanded college credit to provide a $2,500 expanded tax credit for college tuition and related expenses for 2009 and 2010. The credit is phased out for couples making more than $160,000.
    This one is a no-brainer. College tuition costs are out the roof! It makes sense to provide tax credits towards the biggest investing this country can ever think worthy to preserve its prosperity - the education of the youth of tomorrow!! If you're not willing to investing in that, you're just a prude!!
    $6.6 billion: Homebuyer credit: $8,000 refundable credit for all homes bought between 1/1/2009 and 12/1/2009 and repayment provision repealed for homes purchased in 2009 and held more than three years. This only applies to first-time homebuyers.[41]
    I can understand the resistance here considering how we got into this subprime mess, but the key thing to remember is this is for FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYERS. I don't know if there were other restrictions, i.e., the home's value had to be over a certain amount or the home couldn't be purchased in certain economically depressed areas, but since it is the "home buying market" that's suffering right now, I'd think folks like you would be happy that the government is trying to do something to rid its books of these so-called "troubled assets that have lost their value" (assuming that the second provision I mentioned wasn't a restriction).
    $4.7 billion: Excluding from taxation the first $2,400 a person receives in unemployment compensation benefits in 2009.
    I'm with you on this one. You get so much for unemployment benefits (generally in relation to how long you've worked/earned over time. But as we all know, many people won't look for work if they know those unemployment checks are coming. Yet, this period in our nation's history is alittle different. In many depressed areas across the country, there still aren't any jobs for people to look for. Still, their unemployment benefits were extended once already. And although I think in most cases it's by no fault of the individual that he/she is unemployed, I do think that if you've received beyond what your original benefit entitlement was you've likely received more than generous amount of Uncle Sam's money even due to the effects of the recession. So, here I agree. No tax write-off.
    $4.7 billion: Expanded earned income tax credit to increase the earned income tax credit which provides money to low income workers for families with at least three children.
    Not sure I understand this one. I think the EIC qualifier just moved from a "family of two children" to a "family of three children". I'd have to research it to be sure.
    $4.3 billion: Home energy credit to provide an expanded credit to homeowners who make their homes more energy-efficient in 2009 and 2010. Homeowners could recoup 30 percent of the cost up to $1,500 of numerous projects, such as installing energy-efficient windows, doors, furnaces and air conditioners.
    I can get behind this one. It's about "energy conservation and making homes more energy efficient. Why be upset about this? It's a good thing. Plus, if enough people take advantage of this credit it creates demand for those energy efficient products, i.e., windows, doors, sunroofs, kitchen appliances, etc., pretty much anything with the "EnergyStar" logo on it.
    $1.7 billion: for deduction of sales tax from car purchases, not interest payments phased out for incomes above $250,000.
    This one kinda goes with the first-time homebuyer's credit in that two of the nation's auto companies needed to be bailed out in part because they extended too much credit to undeserving customers. But here again, if you want to spur growth in the auto industry - the very auto industry you're hoping to get a large return on investment from because your taxpayer dollars bailed them out - I'd think you'd want this industry to do extremely well.

    How did any of this help the private sector and why selective tax cuts to individuals who don't pay any taxes? Here is a tax cut that worked...

    Bush Tax cuts...
    Save it, pal. I've read your "cut-N-paste" propaganda before. Spar me...

  10. #420
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,971
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: House GOP blocks bill to extend jobless benefits

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    I generally operate under the concept that the government has a high burden of proof to meet when engaging in what is redistributive actions that are most likely not properly authorized by the United States Constitution.
    An ebbing tide lowers all boats.

    Perhaps the BLS is trying to defraud you. Keep an eye on 'em just in case.

    Now is an odd time for there to be a constitutional challenge against unemployment insurance. But if it comes, then that issue can be settled.

Page 42 of 67 FirstFirst ... 32404142434452 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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