![]() |
Disintegration
On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 07:50:56 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote: When they try to contain costs the teacher's union revolts over the loss of Viagra coverage! i lived in texas. texas has no teacher's unions and it has one of the worst school systems in the US. as does mississippi... more right wing bull**** |
Disintegration
On 8/9/10 5:08 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 08:00:19 -0400, "Harry @ news.east.earthlink.net" wrote: In effect, a large part of our political class is showing its priorities: given the choice between asking the richest 2 percent or so of Americans to go back to paying the tax rates they paid during the Clinton-era boom, or allowing the nation's foundations to crumble - literally in the case of roads, figuratively in the case of education - they're choosing the latter. not only that, but we're borrowing to finance the gifts for the rich Once again, 49% federal tax rates for all income over $250,000, and *every* dollar coming in in any way, except for long-term capital gains on investments made in the United States, should be considered income. |
Disintegration
On 8/9/10 5:12 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 07:50:56 -0700 (PDT), wrote: When they try to contain costs the teacher's union revolts over the loss of Viagra coverage! i lived in texas. texas has no teacher's unions and it has one of the worst school systems in the US. as does mississippi... more right wing bull**** South Carolina is the new Mississippi. |
Disintegration
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 17:12:51 -0400, "Harry @ news.east.earthlink.net"
wrote: On 8/9/10 5:08 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 08:00:19 -0400, "Harry @ news.east.earthlink.net" wrote: In effect, a large part of our political class is showing its priorities: given the choice between asking the richest 2 percent or so of Americans to go back to paying the tax rates they paid during the Clinton-era boom, or allowing the nation's foundations to crumble - literally in the case of roads, figuratively in the case of education - they're choosing the latter. not only that, but we're borrowing to finance the gifts for the rich Once again, 49% federal tax rates for all income over $250,000, and *every* dollar coming in in any way, except for long-term capital gains on investments made in the United States, should be considered income. another article the other day pointed out that the richest 1% have seen their effective tax rates drop by 50% in the last 10 years. this country is getting more like mexico every day |
Disintegration
bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 06:28:57 -0700 (PDT), John H wrote: $70 billion a year isn't even a drop in Obama's bucket. But, some folks are just too stupid to realize that. Remember, the Democrats control Congress and the White House. Changing the tax structure is on them. If it doesn't get done, it's 'cause the Dems don't want to do it. really? ever h ear of a filibuster? this congress has had a record number of them as the GOP tries to bring gvot to a halt I guess liberals are just plain stupid (JPS), if you know what I mean. seems you right whiners dont know how govt works... Looks like. But he's as good a name-caller as you. The tax cut expiration issue should be interesting. The R's will try to block any tax increase for the "rich." The D's have at least a couple ways to go. 1. Two bills from the house, one keeping the "rich" tax cuts, the other keeping the "non-rich" tax cuts. The Senate D's will vote against the rich and for the non-rich. The Senate R's can vote against the non-rich and stop it, at their peril. 2. Reconciliation. Since taxes are budgetary, reconciliation is a possibility. That's how the R's passed the "Bush tax cuts." As an indication of how poor the state of journalism is, I couldn't find anything to confirm this could be done. Might be a procedural technicality I'm not aware of that would prohibit it. But if not, the D's can do what they please. If Obama was smart, he'd break his $250k promise and let all the tax cuts expire except leave the 10% bracket alone. Wouldn't keep the wingers from whining, but those who think would see he's doing something real about the deficit on the revenue side at least. He'd then do some heavy work on spending and cost control. But Obama really ain't too smart as a strategist. Not taking positive steps to get industrial jobs back shows that. Only way to get unemployment down. I expect the usual cluster****, but who knows. The only thing for sure is the R's will get the blame if the non-rich taxes go up. Jim - Mark my words. |
Disintegration
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 17:52:47 -0500, Jim wrote:
But Obama really ain't too smart as a strategist. now let's see...who got healthcare passed... uh...FDR? nope... hillary and bill? nope what WAS that president's name...?? Not taking positive steps to get industrial jobs back shows that. of course if he did this he'd be a socialist... Only way to get unemployment down. I expect the usual cluster****, but who knows. The only thing for sure is the R's will get the blame if the non-rich taxes go up. we can only hope. so far the middle class tends to blame the dems for 'tax increases' |
Disintegration
|
Disintegration
|
Disintegration
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 17:52:47 -0500, Jim wrote:
Wouldn't keep the wingers from whining, but those who think would see he's doing something real about the deficit on the revenue side at least. He'd then do some heavy work on spending and cost control. Good strategy for another Great Depression: Reduce government spending and increase taxes. The last guy who tried it during a major down turn is not remembered too favorably: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover |
Disintegration
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:46 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com