Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: Bid to ban earmarks falls short in Senate

  1. #11
    Bus Driver to Hell
    Thorgasm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    12-06-17 @ 11:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    68,191

    Re: Bid to ban earmarks falls short in Senate

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Care to explain how the tax cuts being extended for all but the top 2% will magically solve the deficit but somehow the top 2% having it extended won't, like the Democratic Party is pushing?
    Care to show me where the Dems have said that ending Bush's tax policy would solve the deficit? At the most, there have been claims that it will help solve the deficit.

    The GOP is so concerned about the 3 trillion dollars Obama has added to the deficit yet they want to stick to the tax plan that had to end because it had been deemed to add to the deficit. You see, this is what they talked about in their press conference after their meeting with Obama yesterday. Obama's plan may be bad, but the GOP's is worse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    "Its too bad of an economy to take money out of peoples hands. They need that money to spend. Um...except for these people, if we give them money to spend it will destroy us, so we need to take theirs. Yeah, they're um...different."
    If the top tax rate was 90% or even 71% then I would find credence in this class warfare angle. Obama's plan isn't going to hurt the wealthy. It won't put them in the poorhouse. They won't have to live and dine amongst the commoners. They will still be wealthy.
    Quote Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
    Being a psychiatric patient does not mean that you are mentally ill.



  2. #12
    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: Bid to ban earmarks falls short in Senate

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimjack19 View Post
    I don't really have a problem with earmarks. After after you consider what a tiny portion of the budget they occupy and how much of that tiny percent serves a legitimate purpose, you realize how unworthy the issue is of all the attention it garners, and that Congress has bigger fish to fry.
    My problem is not with the amount of money. I've watched enough C-Span to see how earmarks are used to buy votes for particular bills. That's why they need to go, in my opinion.
    Earmarks end up costing tax payers more than the price of the earmarks by themselves. There has to be a better way to get money to the states for ligitamate projects.
    Catawa is my favorite bleeding heart liberal.
    1/27/12

  3. #13
    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: Bid to ban earmarks falls short in Senate

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimjack19 View Post
    That's not the issue, my point is that if our representatives are serious about fixing the deficit they should be focusing on things that will make a substantive impact on it, not on trivialities. I suspect that is part of the reason why earmark reform is so eagerly taken up by members of Congress, it gives people the impression that they are working to fix the deficit yet brings little risk of upsetting their constituencies the way talk of something big like entitlement cuts might.
    Doing away with earmarks is one thing Republican constituents have asked for. They are listening for a change. (well most of them are)
    Catawa is my favorite bleeding heart liberal.
    1/27/12

  4. #14
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,741

    Re: Bid to ban earmarks falls short in Senate

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Care to explain how the tax cuts being extended for all but the top 2% will magically solve the deficit but somehow the top 2% having it extended won't, like the Democratic Party is pushing?

    "Its too bad of an economy to take money out of peoples hands. They need that money to spend. Um...except for these people, if we give them money to spend it will destroy us, so we need to take theirs. Yeah, they're um...different."
    Well, I will once you can explain where you got the idea that anybody thought any such thing.
    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.

  5. #15
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,940

    Re: Bid to ban earmarks falls short in Senate

    Quote Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002 View Post
    Care to show me where the Dems have said that ending Bush's tax policy would solve the deficit? At the most, there have been claims that it will help solve the deficit.
    Where have the GOP said extending the Bush Tax cuts alone will solve the deficit?

    The GOP is so concerned about the 3 trillion dollars Obama has added to the deficit yet they want to stick to the tax plan that had to end because it had been deemed to add to the deficit. You see, this is what they talked about in their press conference after their meeting with Obama yesterday. Obama's plan may be bad, but the GOP's is worse.
    Gotcha, so you're saying you disagree with the Democrats and Obama's plans and that the Bush Tax Cuts as a whole should be revoked?

    If the top tax rate was 90% or even 71% then I would find credence in this class warfare angle. Obama's plan isn't going to hurt the wealthy. It won't put them in the poorhouse. They won't have to live and dine amongst the commoners. They will still be wealthy.
    Sorry IT, you don't get to decide what "hurts" the wealthy or not. Its not your call to make nor should it be the government. When you're saying that every other class of people should keep low taxes but this TINY portion of the population should have theirs significantly raised because "they can handle it" because "They're rich" with constant implications that they don't deserve it or that its not "fair" then you're most certainly playing the class warfare angle.

  6. #16
    Bus Driver to Hell
    Thorgasm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    12-06-17 @ 11:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    68,191

    Re: Bid to ban earmarks falls short in Senate

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Where have the GOP said extending the Bush Tax cuts alone will solve the deficit?
    They haven't. They complain about the deficit and then turn around and want to add to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Gotcha, so you're saying you disagree with the Democrats and Obama's plans and that the Bush Tax Cuts as a whole should be revoked?
    Not really, I can see how my comment comes across that way. In general, I support the middle class tax break. I don't disagree with tax relief for those who are in need.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Sorry IT, you don't get to decide what "hurts" the wealthy or not. Its not your call to make nor should it be the government. When you're saying that every other class of people should keep low taxes but this TINY portion of the population should have theirs significantly raised because "they can handle it" because "They're rich" with constant implications that they don't deserve it or that its not "fair" then you're most certainly playing the class warfare angle.
    "Constant implications that they don't deserve it"? Sorry, you have me confused with someone else. Taxes cuts/hikes aren't a reward/punishment system. Taxes are necessary. If there is a segment of our population that would be least affected by a tax hike I think we all know which 2% that is. As far as "fair" goes, anything short of a flat tax is "unfair". I guess the GOP's plan is "unfair" too as it is still a progressive tax system.
    Quote Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
    Being a psychiatric patient does not mean that you are mentally ill.



  7. #17
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,940

    Re: Bid to ban earmarks falls short in Senate

    Moderator's Warning:
    Bid to ban earmarks falls short in SenateThread accidentally closed. reopened

  8. #18
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,940

    Re: Bid to ban earmarks falls short in Senate

    Quote Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002 View Post
    They haven't. They complain about the deficit and then turn around and want to add to it.
    Ah, so you don't like people that complain about the deficit then suggest something that you feel will raise the deficit.

    Not really, I can see how my comment comes across that way. In general, I support the middle class tax break. I don't disagree with tax relief for those who are in need.
    Huwahhhh? Wait, so I take it YOU don't care about the deficit since you turn around and want to add to it?

    "Constant implications that they don't deserve it"? Sorry, you have me confused with someone else. Taxes cuts/hikes aren't a reward/punishment system. Taxes are necessary. If there is a segment of our population that would be least affected by a tax hike I think we all know which 2% that is. As far as "fair" goes, anything short of a flat tax is "unfair". I guess the GOP's plan is "unfair" too as it is still a progressive tax system.
    Where was I talking about you specifically? My class warfare comment was aimed at the left in general in this country, which repeatedly implies that somehow the rich don't deserve to have that wealth in various ways. Taxes for necessary things are necessary. Taxes for unnecessary luxury things is the government deeming their judgement on what to do with your money better than your judgement and therefore taking it from you. Taxes for the sake of continuing to add MORE of these unnecessary luxury items is short of theft.

    I've stated on this board my support for an increase in taxes...the moment its tied DIRECTLY with paying down the debt and less spending. I don't want to hear this hogwash about needing it due to deficits or paying down the debt or to cover spending when we've been given zero reasons to assume this isn't just going to give them cover and reason to spend even MORE than before.

  9. #19
    Bus Driver to Hell
    Thorgasm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    12-06-17 @ 11:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    68,191

    Re: Bid to ban earmarks falls short in Senate

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Ah, so you don't like people that complain about the deficit then suggest something that you feel will raise the deficit.
    Yes, I know Obama has done this too.

    The bottom line is that people need relief. There is a deficit problem that runs counter to that. There isn't a "feeling" the Bush tax cuts raise the deficit. It's a fact. If the top two percent pay 50% of the taxes, will the higher rate offset the cut in the other 50% of taxes collected? It's an honest question i don't know the answer to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Huwahhhh? Wait, so I take it YOU don't care about the deficit since you turn around and want to add to it?
    If there are two options and they are add X amount and add 1.5X amount, the lesser of two evils is the obvious choice for me.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Where was I talking about you specifically? My class warfare comment was aimed at the left in general in this country, which repeatedly implies that somehow the rich don't deserve to have that wealth in various ways. Taxes for necessary things are necessary. Taxes for unnecessary luxury things is the government deeming their judgement on what to do with your money better than your judgement and therefore taking it from you. Taxes for the sake of continuing to add MORE of these unnecessary luxury items is short of theft.

    I've stated on this board my support for an increase in taxes...the moment its tied DIRECTLY with paying down the debt and less spending. I don't want to hear this hogwash about needing it due to deficits or paying down the debt or to cover spending when we've been given zero reasons to assume this isn't just going to give them cover and reason to spend even MORE than before.
    That was the point with my original sarcastic comment. Spending is an issue. The GOP leadership seems to be focused on tax cuts, not spending.
    Quote Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
    Being a psychiatric patient does not mean that you are mentally ill.



Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

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