Derby Trail Forums
Page 7 of 8 « First < 56 7 8 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Derby Trail Forums (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Steve Dellinger Discourse Den (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   The real party of NO, the GOP, steps it up (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39808)

Riot 12-07-2010 08:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 731521)
LOL

oh ok. Now it was all Obama's idea?
Holding like a brick wall on tax cuts for the wealthy is the GOP idea. The estate tax at 5 million (rather than 3) and at 35% (rather than 55%) was GOP. Yeah - the rest of the stuff for business was Obama.

Do you literally simply never pay attention to the news at all? :D

SOREHOOF 12-07-2010 08:49 PM
It's not the Govt.'s money. The $25,000 they say they are losing isn't theirs in the first place!

Riot 12-07-2010 08:54 PM
Quote:
so is this 13 month unemployment extension on TOP of the 99 weeks the unemployed already get?
No. The 13 month extension refers to how much longer the government will keep going up to 99 weeks.

Quote:
I know for a fact that a lot of umemployed refuse to find a job that will pay them similar to what they are getting in unemployment. they can get a job that pays $300 per week.. but dont take it cause they'd rather make $300 per week by doing nothing.
Lazy people are lazy, and you won't change them. But I would hardly classify the vast majority of the currently unemployed that way.

I would imagine, considering that there are 5-8 unemployed for every job position, that few are coasting on that generous "below minimum wage equivalent" rather than working.

If you were making minimum wage, you don't get $300 a week. You get less than half that - and they take taxes out of it. If you were making $60,000 a year, you will get $250 or $300 a week. That's not very attractive when you used to make that in a day.

I'm sure some lazy people that only had a minimum wage job might be willing to try and live on $100 a week rather than work. But those folks are not getting $300 a week.

Unemployment only pays a small percentage of your income, as reported to the state for tax purposes in the previous year's time.

And unemployment doesn't require a CPA to take a job at McDonalds just to work.

Quote:
Lazy mofo's.. i wonder how many people are committing fraud against the system. If uncle sam finds out that you dont apply for jobs cause you make the same with unemployment.. you should be forced to pay back every cent you collected plus 15% interest... or go to a Siberian work camp.
I doubt many of the current huge crop are. First off, the former employer gets a say on if a fired employee gets unemployment.

Riot 12-07-2010 08:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 731532)
What difference does it make? The Democrats will find someone to give money to. As a matter of fact I hope Riot doesnt take your suggestion to her superiors at Daily Kos because next thing we know Pelosi will be creating another govt regulatory agency for a few hundred billion (unions backed naturally) that monitors the unemployed.
Well, we can be sure you and your hero Glenn Beck hold the line at the rampant Marxism spreading throughout the country ;)

Riot 12-07-2010 09:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoovesupsideyourhead (Post 731538)
they should make familys that are on welfare for more than 6 months with more than 3 kids get fixed.
You want us to be China, huh?

SOREHOOF 12-07-2010 09:00 PM
People who already ran out aren't going to get anything, only people who are drawing now.

Riot 12-07-2010 09:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOREHOOF (Post 731599)
It's not the Govt.'s money. The $25,000 they say they are losing isn't theirs in the first place!
People need to get a grip. Bush gave a temporary decrease in the tax rate. It had a sunset date. Anything anybody gets beyond that is a brand new deal. The difference between 2001 and 2003 (when this unfunded change occurred) is that now we've spent those years borrowing from China and the Saudis to pay for it, and we are trillions in debt.

This whole thing isn't a done deal by any means. Tax bills come out of the House. John Boehner has already publicly admitted he's not even whipping his caucus to vote for this (the GOP is still completely obstructing anything Obama wants - un effing believable). The Dem progressive caucus is still furious at Obama and threatening no.

Right now the votes are not there. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1..._n_793540.html

It could go that nothing happens, all the tax cuts, unemployment, etc. just expire. 218 is the magic number.

Cannon Shell 12-08-2010 08:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot (Post 731596)
Holding like a brick wall on tax cuts for the wealthy is the GOP idea. The estate tax at 5 million (rather than 3) and at 35% (rather than 55%) was GOP. Yeah - the rest of the stuff for business was Obama.
Yes the new business friendly President.

Your "twist" on the news is always interesting.

Cannon Shell 12-08-2010 08:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot (Post 731609)
People need to get a grip. Bush gave a temporary decrease in the tax rate. It had a sunset date. Anything anybody gets beyond that is a brand new deal. The difference between 2001 and 2003 (when this unfunded change occurred) is that now we've spent those years borrowing from China and the Saudis to pay for it, and we are trillions in debt.

This whole thing isn't a done deal by any means. Tax bills come out of the House. John Boehner has already publicly admitted he's not even whipping his caucus to vote for this (the GOP is still completely obstructing anything Obama wants - un effing believable). The Dem progressive caucus is still furious at Obama and threatening no.

Right now the votes are not there. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1..._n_793540.html

It could go that nothing happens, all the tax cuts, unemployment, etc. just expire. 218 is the magic number.
There you go again connecting things that arent really related. The US deficit is primarily from spending too much, not from not collecting enough. Bush spent like a Democrat which was his primary downfall.

Cannon Shell 12-08-2010 08:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot (Post 731607)
You want us to be China, huh?
You want to make us France.

Cannon Shell 12-08-2010 08:07 AM
Next time
 
Riot acts like "every economist" agrees with her version of the world, remember this article

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...MoreIn_Opinion

Cannon Shell 12-08-2010 08:10 AM
More anti-Riot opinion

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...416429402.html

Cannon Shell 12-08-2010 08:15 AM
Surely Riot will find fault with this

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...n_AboveLEFTTop

An opinion piece that doesnt "favor" Wall Street in the WSJ

She will still disagree i'm sure

Cannon Shell 12-08-2010 08:20 AM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...wsreel_opinion

Another WSJ piece that finds fault with a republican!

Too bad you dont find such even handed, fair analysis in Riot's typically leftist links

Riot 12-08-2010 01:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 731670)
Yes the new business friendly President.

Your "twist" on the news is always interesting.
The President has always been for business and job stimulus. You miss that? :D

Riot 12-08-2010 01:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 731671)
There you go again connecting things that arent really related. The US deficit is primarily from spending too much, not from not collecting enough. Bush spent like a Democrat which was his primary downfall.
There you go again, misstating what I said. Giving massive tax cuts isn't spending. It's income reduction. Two wars and the largest Medicare entitlement program ever is spending.

BTW, the Dems of the past 60 years are not the party of spending. You might do a reality check on some of your assumptions.

Riot 12-08-2010 01:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 731672)
You want to make us France.
:zz: :D Seriously, do you even have a clue about politics? Or do you just pull random stuff out of the air?

timmgirvan 12-08-2010 01:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot (Post 731768)
The President has always been for business and job stimulus. You miss that? :D
http://is.gd/iiw3u

list of waivers.....many of Zero's buddies on here.....gravy train!

Riot 12-08-2010 01:31 PM
Quote:
Riot acts like "every economist" agrees with her version of the world, remember this article
You have it backwards. It's because virtually every economist tells us that giving tax cuts to the wealthy doesn't create jobs, that I support that economic policy. It's not my version of the world, it's theirs.

Actually what the economists say is that giving tax cuts to the very wealthy creates on average about 0.30 of economic stimulus per dollar invested. Giving unemployment benefits produces about 1.61 (average) of economic stimulus. I know where I prefer our government to spend the money.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...MoreIn_Opinion[/quote]

Good for you! This whole thread I've been asking you to find one economist that says trickle-down, as disastrous as it was during Reagan and since, is still some kind of a valid economic model, and you finally come up with two. Dated today. But at least there is one counter-view to the majority.

Riot 12-08-2010 01:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 731677)
I think I'll start labeling what I say as "anti-Chuck" opinion. Because, you know, it's not a thread talking about, or disagreeing about, the politics, it's a thread about other posters :D

Let's talk about this: what do you think about this deal that Obama and the GOP cut? What do you like about it, what do you dislike about it? Do you think it has any chance of passing intact?

Riot 12-08-2010 01:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 731678)
Surely Riot will find fault with this

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...n_AboveLEFTTop

An opinion piece that doesnt "favor" Wall Street in the WSJ

She will still disagree i'm sure
No, actually I agree with alot of that. I even read the WSJ regularly all by myself :D

Cannon Shell 12-08-2010 02:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot (Post 731768)
The President has always been for business and job stimulus. You miss that? :D
Yeah everybody is "for" business and jobs (not sure what job stimulus is?) but he hasnt done much until "forced" by the GOP especially considering the state of the economy

Cannon Shell 12-08-2010 02:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot (Post 731776)
There you go again, misstating what I said. Giving massive tax cuts isn't spending. It's income reduction. Two wars and the largest Medicare entitlement program ever is spending.

BTW, the Dems of the past 60 years are not the party of spending. You might do a reality check on some of your assumptions.
I didnt misstate anything. As I said the tax cuts arent the reason there is a deficit, it was spending. Did you miss the part where i said Bush spent a lot?

The Democrats of the last 2 years have spent at a record smashing pace.

What happened 60 years ago is hardly relevant

Riot 12-08-2010 02:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 731813)
Yeah everybody is "for" business and jobs (not sure what job stimulus is?) but he hasnt done much until "forced" by the GOP especially considering the state of the economy
:D Do tell how the GOP has "forced" Obama to address jobs, the recovery, the recession.

SOREHOOF 12-08-2010 02:39 PM
Congress does the spending, not the Prez. For the last 2 years it has gotten completely out of control. The Dem led Congress has spent like drunken shopaholics with a stolen credit card on Black Friday.

Riot 12-08-2010 02:50 PM
Quote:
I didnt misstate anything. As I said the tax cuts arent the reason there is a deficit, it was spending. Did you miss the part where i said Bush spent a lot?
The majority of our deficit is clearly due to the tax cuts. It's money we had to borrow, with interest, to pay for the routine things we were paying for before the tax cuts. With no additional spending, Bush put us in the hole with the tax cuts.

Reagan created a deficit. Bush I created a deficit. Bush II put us in the poorhouse. My eyes have been opened regarding the GOP and their false "economic responsibility" rep.

That was before the additional spending of the two unfunded wars, before the largest Medicare entitlement. Yeah, the Republicans are spendy buggars, and the worse thing is they used the credit card and ran it up to limit.

You are the one getting specific and detailed about semantics, so let's be specific.

Quote:
The Democrats of the last 2 years have spent at a record smashing pace. What happened 60 years ago is hardly relevant
It would be so helpful if you would not casually change my words and meaning. I am not referring to what happened 60 years ago, I said look at the entire past 60 years, and yes, the GOP is the party of deficits and spending, and the Democrats are clearly not.

Yes, it matters, when people such as yourself continue to misstate the factual truth about who is the party of spending. And then worry about semantics.

Yes, the end of the Bush presidency and the beginning of Obamas was a huge spend - kind of necessary due to this little looming depression, don't you think?

I wouldn't blame Obama for continuing what Bush initiated regarding stimulus spending. Most of what has been "spent" by the "Democrats" (in reality both Bush and Obama) is being repaid, and a great majority of the stimulus funds remain unspent. The true cost is only about 1/3 of budgeted initially, with most of the loans to business anticipated to be repaid with interest to 85 or 90%

I realize that you boil everything down to "Democrats Suck, It's Always Their Fault" but that gets really tiresome when it's not remotely reality-based.

Riot 12-08-2010 02:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOREHOOF (Post 731823)
Congress does the spending, not the Prez. For the last 2 years it has gotten completely out of control. The Dem led Congress has spent like drunken shopaholics with a stolen credit card on Black Friday.
Really? Care to itemize that? I think you'll find the reality different than the right-wing screaming talking points.

Cannon Shell 12-08-2010 02:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot (Post 731784)
I think I'll start labeling what I say as "anti-Chuck" opinion. Because, you know, it's not a thread talking about, or disagreeing about, the politics, it's a thread about other posters :D

Let's talk about this: what do you think about this deal that Obama and the GOP cut? What do you like about it, what do you dislike about it? Do you think it has any chance of passing intact?
You should take it as a compliment. Few posters are so rigid in their views that they can be described as a noun, verb and adverb.

I don't know that we know what the deal actually is. I know what has been given but there may be a sacrificial lamb or two in there.

For certain I believe the continuation of the tax cuts are a positive step. The payroll tax holiday was something I was asking for 2 years ago, glad that made it. The estate tax compromise was ok I guess but the reality is it is grossly unfair to tax someone for dying. The expensing provision was good too but extending it further would have help as it appears like most of the deal to be Obama trying to stimulate the economy on the way to reelection. Extending the unemployment benefits 13 months is fine with me. The other mostly symbolic things are immaterial to me.

I dont know if it will pass intact but I would think that the democrats wont risk messing with it too much. Regardless of how much you or they hate it, a deal has been made that directly benefits most Americans (except those whose u/e benefits ran out). The head democrat has signed on. If they block or signifigantly mess with it, the blame will squarely fall on them.

Cannon Shell 12-08-2010 02:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot (Post 731821)
:D Do tell how the GOP has "forced" Obama to address jobs, the recovery, the recession.
Do you really think that anything would have been done except an extention of the cuts for under 250k and extending unemployent benefits without the GOP standing firm?

Cannon Shell 12-08-2010 03:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot (Post 731827)
The majority of our deficit is clearly due to the tax cuts. It's money we had to borrow, with interest, to pay for the routine things we were paying for before the tax cuts. With no additional spending, Bush put us in the hole with the tax cuts.

Reagan created a deficit. Bush I created a deficit. Bush II put us in the poorhouse. My eyes have been opened regarding the GOP and their false "economic responsibility" rep.

That was before the additional spending of the two unfunded wars, before the largest Medicare entitlement. Yeah, the Republicans are spendy buggars, and the worse thing is they used the credit card and ran it up to limit.

You are the one getting specific and detailed about semantics, so let's be specific.



It would be so helpful if you would not casually change my words and meaning. I am not referring to what happened 60 years ago, I said look at the entire past 60 years, and yes, the GOP is the party of deficits and spending, and the Democrats are clearly not.

Yes, it matters, when people such as yourself continue to misstate the factual truth about who is the party of spending. And then worry about semantics.

Yes, the end of the Bush presidency and the beginning of Obamas was a huge spend - kind of necessary due to this little looming depression, don't you think?

I wouldn't blame Obama for continuing what Bush initiated regarding stimulus spending. Most of what has been "spent" by the "Democrats" (in reality both Bush and Obama) is being repaid, and a great majority of the stimulus funds remain unspent. The true cost is only about 1/3 of budgeted initially, with most of the loans to business anticipated to be repaid with interest to 85 or 90%

I realize that you boil everything down to "Democrats Suck, It's Always Their Fault" but that gets really tiresome when it's not remotely reality-based.
Talk about lack of reality...

Riot 12-08-2010 03:10 PM
Quote:
You should take it as a compliment. Few posters are so rigid in their views that they can be described as a noun, verb and adverb.
It's easier to make up my own mind, than have to wait for Hannity, Beck and Breitbach to tell me what to think ;)

Quote:
For certain I believe the continuation of the tax cuts are a positive step. The payroll tax holiday was something I was asking for 2 years ago, glad that made it.
I agree it's good to put money in people's pockets, and it's a reasonably generous amount considering, but I don't like that he's taken it out of employee's social security contribution. Bad precedent, as it risks permanence.

Quote:
The estate tax compromise was ok I guess but the reality is it is grossly unfair to tax someone for dying.
I agree. I think the estate tax should be zero.

Quote:
The expensing provision was good too but extending it further would have help as it appears like most of the deal to be Obama trying to stimulate the economy on the way to reelection.
Or stimulating the economy because people are homeless, out of work, starving, and unemployment is still raging. But hey, details, right? It would be nice if that were a three year plan, agreed.

Quote:
I dont know if it will pass intact but I would think that the democrats wont risk messing with it too much. Regardless of how much you or they hate it, a deal has been made that directly benefits most Americans (except those whose u/e benefits ran out). The head democrat has signed on. If they block or signifigantly mess with it, the blame will squarely fall on them.
I think that the trillions Obama got are true stimulus and very helpful, and the lesser amount the GOP got isn't stimulating and is clearly simply budget busting. At this point as a trade off I think the benefit outweighs the bad. Vote for it.

However - that none of it is funded is outrageous to me, and I do have a big problem with that, especially for the tax cuts for the wealthy. We could cut the cost of this thing by half by eliminating that one thing, that is supported by the public. Or even just eliminate tax cuts for dollars over 2 million - that would still pay for nearly half this. I think that would pass the House, and I think it would pass the Senate, too.

But to hold the whole thing up with no votes, and wait for the next Congress, is absurd, because of the real unemployed that will suffer.

Riot 12-08-2010 03:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 731833)
Do you really think that anything would have been done except an extention of the cuts for under 250k and extending unemployent benefits without the GOP standing firm?
The GOP has been "standing firm" and blocking much of that with filibuster all year.

Yes, acting like 3-year-olds in serious need of Supernanny and a time-out for their temper tantrums has worked very successfully for them.

With the last two House votes, the GOP clearly declared that the hill they die on are the financial interests of those making over 1 million dollars a year. Duly noted.

Cannon Shell 12-08-2010 03:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot (Post 731839)
It's easier to make up my own mind, than have to wait for Hannity, Beck and Breitbach to tell me what to think ;)
I have never watched more than a few minutes of either Beck or Hannity. Didn't even know Breitbach had a show.

Cannon Shell 12-08-2010 03:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot (Post 731846)
The GOP has been "standing firm" and blocking much of that with filibuster all year.

Yes, acting like 3-year-olds in serious need of Supernanny and a time-out for their temper tantrums has worked very successfully for them.

With the last two House votes, the GOP clearly declared that the hill they die on are the financial interests of those making over 1 million dollars a year. Duly noted.
and all the lefty whining the last few days is very mature. Even the head lefty had to slap their wrist.

Coach Pants 12-08-2010 03:28 PM
She's feeling guilty for being a dedicated HuffPo participant.

Antitrust32 12-08-2010 03:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot (Post 731839)
I agree it's good to put money in people's pockets, and it's a reasonably generous amount considering, but I don't like that he's taken it out of employee's social security contribution. Bad precedent, as it risks permanence.
.
please please please please please be true!!

Riot 12-08-2010 03:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 731853)
and all the lefty whining the last few days is very mature. Even the head lefty had to slap their wrist.
The far left is the party of whine. Did you see any GOP on the press yesterday? Justifying standing up for the wealthy? Hell no, they quietly were holed up at the bars in Washington waiting for the rightous indignation to pass, watching the left eat into it's middle.

Riot 12-08-2010 03:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 731852)
I have never watched more than a few minutes of either Beck or Hannity. Didn't even know Breitbach had a show.
Breitbach doesn't have a show, he has a blog. You can catch Beck on the radio airwaves or in your local grocery fast-book aisle.

Antitrust32 12-08-2010 04:00 PM
Beck is very smart and entertaining.

though i think even the far right takes what he says with a grain of salt. its pure entertainment.

the only one worth actually listening to and taking information from, IMO, is BO (Bill O'Reilly, not B Obama)

Riot 12-08-2010 04:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antitrust32 (Post 731866)
please please please please please be true!!
That you want permanence, or do not? (don't understand what you are saying)

Social Security is completely fine, as it is, for everyone up to 40 years from now. It's had tweeks in the past, it needs another one or two for that time. Like Keith Richards during the late 70's, the predictions of it's impending doom are usually greatly exaggerated.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:34 AM.
Page 7 of 8 « First < 56 7 8 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.