On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 00:53:40 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 19:59:57 -0800, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 21:57:01 -0500, wrote:



Anyone individual making more than $250K should be taxed a bit more on
the amount over the line... by a few percent as per what was proposed.
The Republicans fought tooth and nail to prevent that. The Democrats
even proposed pushing that up to $1M, but no go from the Republicans.
Why?

So you agree with my numbers now? OK

The answer to your question is simple. Rich people are the only ones
who can afford to buy congressmen. If the republicans were not taking
point on these tax loopholes, the democrats would be doing it.

Did you see this. A real eye opener about who is bribing whom.

http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpictur...Rep&Cycle=2008

Agree with which numbers? The fact is that the Republicans blocked a
reasonable tax increase and have made the situation worse.

I agree the Bush tax cuts should have expired, I always have, but I
also know it would not approach fixing this $1.1T deficit.

Yes, it would. OVER THE LONG TERM.
How is that?
You are not attacking a 1.1 trillion dollar deficit that is going up
every year with a $70B tax increase.

Try your math again.


The projection for the whole thing (resetting to 2001 rates for
everyone) was only about $70B a year ($700B over 10 years)
That is why I put this in perspective and cited the total net worth
for the top 2%.
That would take care of the deficit for about 18 months and there
wouldn't be a US economy anymore because you liquidated all the big
companies.

You need to start thinking longer term.

It is worse in the future than it is now. How does long term help?
You are just kicking the can down the road and hoping you die before
you hit the wall. That may work if you are 75 but if you are in your
60s it is going to crash before you die.
If you are in your 50s it will hit the wall before you can retire.
Print this out and put it in your wallet with your social security
card

"By 2020 the minimum retirement age will be at least 70 and benefits
will be strictly means tested. If you are much above the poverty
level, you won't get a dime from Social Security"
"Medicare will be a totally different program and a lot less generous"

You will think I was nostradamus

I think you're very afraid.

On Feb 22, 1:21*am, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 00:53:40 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 19:59:57 -0800, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 21:57:01 -0500, wrote:

Anyone individual making more than $250K should be taxed a bit more on
the amount over the line... by a few percent as per what was proposed.
The Republicans fought tooth and nail to prevent that. The Democrats
even proposed pushing that up to $1M, but no go from the Republicans.
Why?

So you agree with my numbers now? OK

The answer to your question is simple. Rich people are the only ones
who can afford to buy congressmen. If the republicans were not taking
point on these tax loopholes, the democrats would be doing it.

Did you see this. A real eye opener about who is bribing whom.

http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpictur...kdn=DemRep&Cyc...

Agree with which numbers? The fact is that the Republicans blocked a
reasonable tax increase and have made the situation worse.

I agree the Bush tax cuts should have expired, I always have, but I
also know it would not approach fixing this $1.1T deficit.

Yes, it would. OVER THE LONG TERM.
How is that?
You are not attacking a 1.1 trillion dollar deficit that is going up
every year with a $70B tax increase.

Try your math again.





The projection for the whole thing (resetting to 2001 rates for
everyone) was only about $70B a year ($700B over 10 years)
That is why I put this in perspective and cited the total net worth
for the top 2%.
That would take care of the deficit for about 18 months and there
wouldn't be a US economy anymore because you liquidated all the big
companies.

You need to start thinking longer term.

It is worse in the future than it is now. How does long term help?
You are just kicking the can down the road and hoping you die before
you hit the wall. That may work if you are 75 but if you are in your
60s it is going to crash before you die.
If you are in your 50s it will hit the wall before you can retire.
Print this out and put it in your wallet with your social security
card

"By 2020 the minimum retirement age will be at least 70 and benefits
will be strictly means tested. If you are much above the poverty
level, you won't get a dime from Social Security"
"Medicare will be a totally different program and a lot less generous"

You will think I was nostradamus

I think you're very afraid.

Many here believe you are stupid.

On 2/22/2011 5:15 AM, TopBassDog wrote:
On Feb 22, 1:21 am, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 00:53:40 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 19:59:57 -0800, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 21:57:01 -0500, wrote:
Anyone individual making more than $250K should be taxed a bit more on
the amount over the line... by a few percent as per what was proposed.
The Republicans fought tooth and nail to prevent that. The Democrats
even proposed pushing that up to $1M, but no go from the Republicans.
Why?
So you agree with my numbers now? OK
The answer to your question is simple. Rich people are the only ones
who can afford to buy congressmen. If the republicans were not taking
point on these tax loopholes, the democrats would be doing it.
Did you see this. A real eye opener about who is bribing whom.
http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpictur...kdn=DemRep&Cyc...
Agree with which numbers? The fact is that the Republicans blocked a
reasonable tax increase and have made the situation worse.
I agree the Bush tax cuts should have expired, I always have, but I
also know it would not approach fixing this $1.1T deficit.
Yes, it would. OVER THE LONG TERM.
How is that?
You are not attacking a 1.1 trillion dollar deficit that is going up
every year with a $70B tax increase.
Try your math again.





The projection for the whole thing (resetting to 2001 rates for
everyone) was only about $70B a year ($700B over 10 years)
That is why I put this in perspective and cited the total net worth
for the top 2%.
That would take care of the deficit for about 18 months and there
wouldn't be a US economy anymore because you liquidated all the big
companies.
You need to start thinking longer term.
It is worse in the future than it is now. How does long term help?
You are just kicking the can down the road and hoping you die before
you hit the wall. That may work if you are 75 but if you are in your
60s it is going to crash before you die.
If you are in your 50s it will hit the wall before you can retire.
Print this out and put it in your wallet with your social security
card
"By 2020 the minimum retirement age will be at least 70 and benefits
will be strictly means tested. If you are much above the poverty
level, you won't get a dime from Social Security"
"Medicare will be a totally different program and a lot less generous"
You will think I was nostradamus
I think you're very afraid.
Many here believe you are stupid.
That's a given.

On 2/22/2011 2:21 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 00:53:40 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 19:59:57 -0800, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 21:57:01 -0500, wrote:

Anyone individual making more than $250K should be taxed a bit more on
the amount over the line... by a few percent as per what was proposed.
The Republicans fought tooth and nail to prevent that. The Democrats
even proposed pushing that up to $1M, but no go from the Republicans.
Why?
So you agree with my numbers now? OK

The answer to your question is simple. Rich people are the only ones
who can afford to buy congressmen. If the republicans were not taking
point on these tax loopholes, the democrats would be doing it.

Did you see this. A real eye opener about who is bribing whom.

http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpictur...Rep&Cycle=2008
Agree with which numbers? The fact is that the Republicans blocked a
reasonable tax increase and have made the situation worse.
I agree the Bush tax cuts should have expired, I always have, but I
also know it would not approach fixing this $1.1T deficit.
Yes, it would. OVER THE LONG TERM.
How is that?
You are not attacking a 1.1 trillion dollar deficit that is going up
every year with a $70B tax increase.
Try your math again.

The projection for the whole thing (resetting to 2001 rates for
everyone) was only about $70B a year ($700B over 10 years)
That is why I put this in perspective and cited the total net worth
for the top 2%.
That would take care of the deficit for about 18 months and there
wouldn't be a US economy anymore because you liquidated all the big
companies.
You need to start thinking longer term.
It is worse in the future than it is now. How does long term help?
You are just kicking the can down the road and hoping you die before
you hit the wall. That may work if you are 75 but if you are in your
60s it is going to crash before you die.
If you are in your 50s it will hit the wall before you can retire.
Print this out and put it in your wallet with your social security
card

"By 2020 the minimum retirement age will be at least 70 and benefits
will be strictly means tested. If you are much above the poverty
level, you won't get a dime from Social Security"
"Medicare will be a totally different program and a lot less generous"

You will think I was nostradamus
I think you're very afraid.
Ignorance is bliss. Poor baby.

On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 12:27:04 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 23:21:30 -0800, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 00:53:40 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 19:59:57 -0800, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 21:57:01 -0500, wrote:



Anyone individual making more than $250K should be taxed a bit more on
the amount over the line... by a few percent as per what was proposed.
The Republicans fought tooth and nail to prevent that. The Democrats
even proposed pushing that up to $1M, but no go from the Republicans.
Why?

So you agree with my numbers now? OK

The answer to your question is simple. Rich people are the only ones
who can afford to buy congressmen. If the republicans were not taking
point on these tax loopholes, the democrats would be doing it.

Did you see this. A real eye opener about who is bribing whom.

http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpictur...Rep&Cycle=2008

Agree with which numbers? The fact is that the Republicans blocked a
reasonable tax increase and have made the situation worse.

I agree the Bush tax cuts should have expired, I always have, but I
also know it would not approach fixing this $1.1T deficit.

Yes, it would. OVER THE LONG TERM.
How is that?
You are not attacking a 1.1 trillion dollar deficit that is going up
every year with a $70B tax increase.

Try your math again.

It is not my math, itt is OMB. They say that tax hike would be $700B
in 10 years.


The projection for the whole thing (resetting to 2001 rates for
everyone) was only about $70B a year ($700B over 10 years)
That is why I put this in perspective and cited the total net worth
for the top 2%.
That would take care of the deficit for about 18 months and there
wouldn't be a US economy anymore because you liquidated all the big
companies.

You need to start thinking longer term.

It is worse in the future than it is now. How does long term help?
You are just kicking the can down the road and hoping you die before
you hit the wall. That may work if you are 75 but if you are in your
60s it is going to crash before you die.
If you are in your 50s it will hit the wall before you can retire.
Print this out and put it in your wallet with your social security
card

"By 2020 the minimum retirement age will be at least 70 and benefits
will be strictly means tested. If you are much above the poverty
level, you won't get a dime from Social Security"
"Medicare will be a totally different program and a lot less generous"

You will think I was nostradamus

I think you're very afraid.

Yes I am.
I can't help it if you think nothing can happen to us because we are
the USA but history shows us, all empires fall. It usually happens
when the government can't pay it's bills.

I've never said that. In fact, I've said repeatedly that we need to
get our house in order. Let's start with the House and the rich to
whom they cater.

On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 16:49:54 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 11:07:27 -0800, wrote:

I think you're very afraid.

Yes I am.
I can't help it if you think nothing can happen to us because we are
the USA but history shows us, all empires fall. It usually happens
when the government can't pay it's bills.

I've never said that. In fact, I've said repeatedly that we need to
get our house in order. Let's start with the House and the rich to
whom they cater.

The senate is the traditional rich man's club.

Yet at the moment, it's the House that's acting loony.

On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 19:14:53 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 15:30:31 -0800, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 16:49:54 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 11:07:27 -0800, wrote:

I think you're very afraid.

Yes I am.
I can't help it if you think nothing can happen to us because we are
the USA but history shows us, all empires fall. It usually happens
when the government can't pay it's bills.

I've never said that. In fact, I've said repeatedly that we need to
get our house in order. Let's start with the House and the rich to
whom they cater.

The senate is the traditional rich man's club.

Yet at the moment, it's the House that's acting loony.


I agree, they are not doing anything significant either. They are
saving millions in a trillion dollar problem.

Bear in mind if we didn't have a loony house in the 90s Clinton would
have never had a balanced budget. Budgets come from the house. That
200 pound fairy tale the president submits has no real meaning at all.
They have no obligation to even read it.

Certainly true about the Presidential budget... it's a wish list at
best.