• 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!

Two Major Conservative Obstacles Emerge To Tax Cut Compromise

Shameful, disgraceful and beyond any rational excuse. Turning their backs on the brave men and women who rushed into those burning buildings on 911. Its just beyond any petty political excuse. Each GOP member who voted NO should have to go to the home of those brave men and women and explain their political excuses and see what reaction they get.

Shame on them.

yeah... the list I posted is just full of piddling, unimportant ****, right? :rolleyes:

Blinders much?
 
I really, really hope this is true and DeMint and his idiot acolytes scuttle this deal. Leave it to them to not be satisfied with getting 99% of what they want.

Much better if they all hold their noses and vote for it now. If they don't it could still be unresolved for weeks or months to come.

ricksfolly
 
yeah... the list I posted is just full of piddling, unimportant ****, right?

Congrats - you finally got something right for a change. Compared to the 911 responders, it aint *#@%.
 
Congrats - you finally got something right for a change. Compared to the 911 responders, it aint *#@%.

those people were/are state employees correct?
 
Does anyone know (or have an estimate) on how much the Bush tax cuts will cost for only the wealthiest 2 per cent of wage earners over the next 2-years?

Tax cuts don't cost the govt. anything. Do you think your tax cut is an expense to the govt?
 
those people were/are state employees correct?

Exactly, liberals are so confused, they don't seem to understand who funds teachers, police, fire, highways, believing that it all comes from the Federal Govt. Our education is in a very sad state today.
 
The Republicans will fight like caged animals to cut taxes for the wealthy but they raise the middle finger to policemen and firefighters who need help in the 911 attacks

Republicans Block Passage of 9/11 Responder Aid Bill | Public Intelligence

This truly sickens me and makes me ashamed that such a political party even exists in this country. I bet Abe Lincoln would have the same reaction.

Stop making a fool of yourself, police, fire, and any other first responder is funded by state and local taxes, not Federal income taxes.
 
Stop making a fool of yourself, police, fire, and any other first responder is funded by state and local taxes, not Federal income taxes.

The fool is he who will not see because of ideological blinders he has strapped onto his own head.

The bill would have provided over SEN BILLION DOLLARS and the people it would have helped were the first responders who have developed health problems from the 911 attacks. People like firefighters covered in ash and chemicals, policemen and women, and others who have developed health problems that are expensive to deal with.

You can keep your condescending crap about levels of government and who does what.

This is disgraceful that Republicans will fight like hell for tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans but will turn down seven billion dollars in aid for persons ill from 911.

I realize you True Believers prefer faith to facts and ideology to information, but here are the sad details from the Times

WASHINGTON — House Republicans on Thursday blocked a Democratic plan to provide billions of dollars for medical treatment to rescue workers and residents of New York City who suffered illnesses from the toxic dust and debris at ground zero.
Related

Times Topic: 9/11 Health and Environmental Issues
A majority of the lawmakers in the chamber supported the bill, but the 255-to-159 vote fell short of the two-thirds margin needed under special rules that were used to bring the measure to the floor. In the end, 243 Democrats and 12 Republicans supported the measure; 155 Republicans and 4 Democrats opposed it.

Democrats used rules requiring a wider majority for approval to prevent Republicans from offering amendments on the floor that would embarrass Democrats in an election year.

Republican opponents of the legislation expressed concern over the $7.4 billion cost of the program. But Democrats accused Republicans of being callous and vowed to bring the bill back for another vote in the fall.

Until now, the federal government has been appropriating money on an annual basis to monitor the health of people injured at ground zero and to provide them with medical treatment. But the bill’s supporters said there were problems with the year-to-year approach, including that money for the program was subject to the political whims of Congress and the White House.

The bill would have provided $3.2 billion over the next eight years to monitor and treat injuries stemming from exposure to toxic dust and debris at ground zero. New York City would have paid 10 percent of those health costs.

The bill also would have set aside $4.2 billion to reopen the Sept. 11 Victim Compensation Fund to provide compensation for any job and economic losses.

In addition, the bill contained a provision that would have allowed money from the Victim Compensation Fund to be paid out to anyone who receives payment under the pending settlement stemming from lawsuits that 10,000 rescue and cleanup workers filed against the city. At the moment, anyone who receives a settlement from the city could not receive compensation from the fund, according to the bill’s sponsors.

Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, a Democrat and one of the bill’s chief sponsors, expressed disappointment with the outcome, saying that it was a shame that many who opposed the measure “don’t understand the scope and severity of this health crisis.” But she expressed confidence that the House would pass the bill with a simple majority when Congress returned from its summer recess in September.

Representative Lamar Smith, a Republican from Texas, who opposed the bill, described it as an “irresponsible overreach” and asserted that it did not contain sufficient protections to prevent waste and fraud.

Representative Jerrold Nadler, another Democratic sponsor, called the rejection of the measure “heartless and unpatriotic.”

There are nearly 60,000 people enrolled in a variety of health-monitoring and treatment programs related to the 9/11 attacks, according to the sponsors of the bill. The federal government provides the bulk of the funding for those health programs.

Any more lectures about the three levels of government?
 
Last edited:
The fool is he who will not see because of ideological blinders he has strapped onto his own head.

The bill would have provided over SEN BILLION DOLLARS and the people it would have helped were the first responders who have developed health problems from the 911 attacks. People like firefighters covered in ash and chemicals, policemen and women, and others who have developed health problems that are expensive to deal with.

You can keep your condescending crap about levels of government and who does what.

This is disgraceful that Republicans will fight like hell for tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans but will turn down seven billion dollars in aid for persons ill from 911.

You don't seem to have a clue, tax cuts have nothing to do with the denial of benefits but keep making these things up. You think this is a winning issue? The election of 11-02 said differently. Still asking the same question, is your tax cut an expense to the govt? Allowing people to keep more of their own money isn't an expense. I cannot believe people who believe they are intelligent make statements to the contrary. Nothing has prevented the govt. from spending, spending, spending, and spending. We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.
 
Not a blanket statement at all.

But an accurate one, why would anyone try to tie police, fire, teachers, and other state responsibilities to Federal Taxes? I suggest you study the various taxes and their purpose. I have posted all the items funded by the Federal Govt. which are part of the U.S. Budget but appearntly liberals are having a hard time comprehending those line items. I don't see teachers, fireman, police listed, do you?

U.S. Treasury
Current Report: Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United States Government (Combined Statement): Publications & Guidance: Financial Management Service
 
But an accurate one, why would anyone try to tie police, fire, teachers, and other state responsibilities to Federal Taxes? I suggest you study the various taxes and their purpose. I have posted all the items funded by the Federal Govt. which are part of the U.S. Budget but appearntly liberals are having a hard time comprehending those line items. I don't see teachers, fireman, police listed, do you?

U.S. Treasury
Current Report: Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United States Government (Combined Statement): Publications & Guidance: Financial Management Service

What percentage of people in a group are required to make a blanket statement like that. I suggest you go out, do a poll of Liberals, and see how many think fire departments are paid for federally.

I spose you'd call me a Liberal (would you not?) and I never thought (well, after I put down the toy fire engine and picked up a book) that the fire department was funded federally.

If you want to sink the conversation to blanket statements then I have a few for you.
 
What percentage of people in a group are required to make a blanket statement like that. I suggest you go out, do a poll of Liberals, and see how many think fire departments are paid for federally.

I spose you'd call me a Liberal (would you not?) and I never thought (well, after I put down the toy fire engine and picked up a book) that the fire department was funded federally.

If you want to sink the conversation to blanket statements then I have a few for you.

From what I have read in the paper, seen on TV, and written here, I can only speculate that the number is high. You list yourself as an independent and just wondered what being independent means if you believe that tax cuts are an expense to the govt? Those so called blanket statements are direct responses to posters here who keep mentioning police, fire, and other state responsibility issues. I posted the budget of the United States for all to see and research. That isn't a blanket statement, that is fact.
 
From what I have read in the paper, seen on TV, and written here, I can only speculate that the number is high.

Speculation =/= evidence. Do some surveying.

You list yourself as an independent and just wondered what being independent means if you believe that tax cuts are an expense to the govt?

When did I advocate this position :S In fact, if you go back and read some of my posts to you on other threads, you'll see that I defended your side on the issue of tax cuts being an expense.

hose so called blanket statements are direct responses to posters here who keep mentioning police, fire, and other state responsibility issues.

Again, nice sample space.

I posted the budget of the United States for all to see and research. That isn't a blanket statement, that is fact.

If that were all you did I would have no problem, unfortunately, that's not all you did, you claimed that "liberals" are so confused because they don't know those facts.

There's a blatantly obvious distinction. :peace
 
Speculation =/= evidence. Do some surveying.



When did I advocate this position :S In fact, if you go back and read some of my posts to you on other threads, you'll see that I defended your side on the issue of tax cuts being an expense.



Again, nice sample space.



If that were all you did I would have no problem, unfortunately, that's not all you did, you claimed that "liberals" are so confused because they don't know those facts.

There's a blatantly obvious distinction. :peace

Since you aren't a liberal (your claim) how would you know what a liberal thinks? Why are you concerned about my opinion on liberals? An independent wouldn't care what someone else thinks about someone of another political ideology. If you are indeed independent shouldn't you be concerned about the misinformation being spread by liberals in this forum? Why aren't you, Mr. Independent, challenging the comments here regarding use taxes vs. income taxes? Contrary to your opinion, I am no following you in this forum and only respond to posts you actually make in forums that I am part of.
 
Tax cuts don't cost the govt. anything. Do you think your tax cut is an expense to the govt?

Do tax cuts add to the deficit during a recession? If so, then yes my tax cuts and yours are an expense to the government especially when revenues are down and we're borrowing money just to pay for most of them. Otherwise, no. It just depends on the state of the economy at the time such tax cuts are authorized.

Now, to my original question...

Objective Voice said:
Does anyone know (or have an estimate) on how much the Bush tax cuts will cost for only the wealthiest 2 per cent of wage earners over the next 2-years?

I think the reported estimate is somewhere around $60 million. Compare that to the estimated $56 million for one year of unemployment benefits. So, now my question is how many wealthy individuals stand to receive the $60M in tax cuts compared to the number of unemployed individuals who stand to receive $56M in unemployment benefits?
 
You don't seem to have a clue, tax cuts have nothing to do with the denial of benefits but keep making these things up. You think this is a winning issue? The election of 11-02 said differently. Still asking the same question, is your tax cut an expense to the govt? Allowing people to keep more of their own money isn't an expense. I cannot believe people who believe they are intelligent make statements to the contrary. Nothing has prevented the govt. from spending, spending, spending, and spending. We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

Thank you for your response.

Next time please respond to the post I made and which you copied in your post. Nothing you said had anything to do with it in any way.
 
Do tax cuts add to the deficit during a recession? If so, then yes my tax cuts and yours are an expense to the government especially when revenues are down and we're borrowing money just to pay for most of them. Otherwise, no. It just depends on the state of the economy at the time such tax cuts are authorized.

Now, to my original question...



I think the reported estimate is somewhere around $60 million. Compare that to the estimated $56 million for one year of unemployment benefits. So, now my question is how many wealthy individuals stand to receive the $60M in tax cuts compared to the number of unemployed individuals who stand to receive $56M in unemployment benefits?

Nope, tax cuts never are an expense to the Federal Govt. You are under the assumption that tax cuts reduce govt. revenue and regardless that isn't an expense. The fact is that people keeping more of what they earn means less affect of that recession on them. We don't have a revenue problem we have a spending problem.

so the answer to your question remains, the tax cut didn't cost the govt. a dime.
 
Thank you for your response.

Next time please respond to the post I made and which you copied in your post. Nothing you said had anything to do with it in any way.

As long as you have the misconception that tax cuts are an expense to the Federal Govt(cost) then I am going to continue to respond the way I did. Tax cuts ARE NOT a cost to the Federal Govt. IF they reduce revenue so be it, that doesn't make it a cost. A cost is an expense item and has nothing to do with revenue. We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.
 
As long as you have the misconception that tax cuts are an expense to the Federal Govt(cost) then I am going to continue to respond the way I did. Tax cuts ARE NOT a cost to the Federal Govt. IF they reduce revenue so be it, that doesn't make it a cost. A cost is an expense item and has nothing to do with revenue. We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

And again you respond to something of your own creation instead of responding to what I wrote about your friends the Republicans in Congress opting to support tax hikes for the wealthy while pissing on the brave men and women who were first responders in the 911 attacks. First I said shame on them. Your rigid self imposed ideological blindness on this issue seems to include you in that shame as well.
 
And again you respond to something of your own creation instead of responding to what I wrote about your friends the Republicans in Congress opting to support tax hikes for the wealthy while pissing on the brave men and women who were first responders in the 911 attacks. First I said shame on them. Your rigid self imposed ideological blindness on this issue seems to include you in that shame as well.

Did you read the bill or just respond out of what the media told you? Get back to me with the answer. Tax cuts have nothing to do with the decision to spend in this or any other Congress. Trying to tie the two together like you have is disingenuous and nothing more than a diversion. Supporting tax cuts for anyone and spending are two separate issues. Tax cuts don't have to be paid for but spending does.
 
Did you read the bill or just respond out of what the media told you? Get back to me with the answer. Tax cuts have nothing to do with the decision to spend in this or any other Congress. Trying to tie the two together like you have is disingenuous and nothing more than a diversion. Supporting tax cuts for anyone and spending are two separate issues. Tax cuts don't have to be paid for but spending does.

All by itself, without considering anything else before the Congress, the refusal of the GOP to pass the bill spending $7 billion to help the families of the dead and the current living responders who are seriously ill is disgraceful, shameful and merits only the greatest contempt. All by itself.

But in a real world it is not all by itself.

When you then couple that with the GOP embrace of the wealthy and their desire continue applying oral massage to the rear end of the wealthiest in this land, it is doubly disgraceful, doubly shameful and even more contemptible.
 
All by itself, without considering anything else before the Congress, the refusal of the GOP to pass the bill spending $7 billion to help the families of the dead and the current living responders who are seriously ill is disgraceful, shameful and merits only the greatest contempt. All by itself.

But in a real world it is not all by itself.

When you then couple that with the GOP embrace of the wealthy and their desire continue applying oral massage to the rear end of the wealthiest in this land, it is doubly disgraceful, doubly shameful and even more contemptible.

If the bill included a provision to make Obama president for life, and the GOP blocked it, would you feel the same way? That blocking it is 'disgraceful, shameful and merits only the greatest contempt'?
 
Back
Top Bottom