120 Days to Go Until the Largest Tax Hikes in History.

[Redress]

Figured you'd come in with overblown rhetoric and nonsensical defense of the Left. But hey, that's what you do.

The "plan" is to extend the tax cuts for those under 200k eh?

When's the vote? Seriously, we're in overdrive campaign time, not a lot get's done here. Oh wait, is this plan "Re-Elect us and we promise we'll do it"? Kinda like "We'll have to pass Obamacare to know what's in it?"

Pelosi says she wants the vote before the November election. When you have actual facts(I can document everything I have said) get back to me, until then you are just crying about something that has zero basis in reality.

 

[MaggieD]

Some wealthy people vehemently disagree with you.

Surplus wealth is a sacred trust which its possessor is bound to administer in his lifetime for the good of the community.

I would as soon leave my son a curse as the almighty dollar.

That the parent who leaves his son enormous wealth generally deadens the talents and energies of the son, and tempts him to lead a less useful and less worthy life than he otherwise would, seems to me capable of proof which cannot be gainsaid.

-AC

And wealthy people know how to leave the bulk of their estate to their heirs tax-free. Just takes some planning. Trust me, we know.

Then how ridiculous is the whole argument???? It isn't hard to accumulate $1.5 million in a lifetime of successful endeavor. $1.5 million spread out among one's family doesn't create Paris Hiltons. Tens of millions have done it -- the gvmt shouldn't confiscate it -- and one shouldn't have to pay tens of thousands of dollars jumping through ridiculous hoops to avoid it.

 

[hazlnut]

Then how ridiculous is the whole argument???? It isn't hard to accumulate $1.5 million in a lifetime of successful endeavor. $1.5 million spread out among one's family doesn't create Paris Hiltons. Tens of millions have done it -- the gvmt shouldn't confiscate it -- and one shouldn't have to pay tens of thousands of dollars jumping through ridiculous hoops to avoid it.

That's just how Andrew Carnegie felt about it. -- The point is you accumulated the 10 of millions on the backs of your community.

 

[Renae]

Pelosi says she wants the vote before the November election. When you have actual facts(I can document everything I have said) get back to me, until then you are just crying about something that has zero basis in reality.

She WANTS too, wow. That's 58 some odd days, call us when they actually ya know, schedule a vote. Otherwise it's pandering and you just eat it up. I'm betting they don't vote before the election.

 

[Renae]

That's just how Andrew Carnegie felt about it. -- The point is you accumulated the 10 of millions on the backs of your community.

What nonsense, are you actually claiming that rich people get rich by forcing people to give them money??

 

[Thorgasm]

Technically, this is a Republican tax hike. It was their plan for the tax cuts to expire.

 

[hazlnut]

What nonsense, are you actually claiming that rich people get rich by forcing people to give them money??

Yeah, that's exactly what Andrew Carnegie meant...:roll::roll:

Try again, Vicchio.

 

[Renae]

Yeah, that's exactly what Andrew Carnegie meant...:roll::roll:

Try again, Vicchio.

I asked for clarification, clarify.

 

[Renae]

Technically, this is a Republican tax hike. It was their plan for the tax cuts to expire.

IT was the only way to get Dem's to go along with it. Don't be dishonest.

 

[Thorgasm]

IT was the only way to get Dem's to go along with it. Don't be dishonest.

I'm not the one calling it Obama's tax hike. :rofl

Does this mean that Reverend's source is biased because they didn't give credit to the Dems for that tax cut? It merely said "GOP Congress".

 

[hazlnut]

I asked for clarification, clarify.

No, you paraphrased inaccurately.

If you wanted clarification, then you would have said, "I'm not familiar with those quotes, who said that, what did he mean?"

If you're really interested here is one of his essays on wealth. Read it and get back to me, so I know you have a baseline understanding of what I'm talking about.

Pay particular attention to:

There are but three modes in which surplus wealth can be disposed of. It call be left to the families of the decedents; or it can be bequeathed for public purposes; or, finally, it can be administered during their lives by its possessors. Under the first and second modes most of the wealth of the world that has reached the few has hitherto been applied. Let us in turn consider each of these modes. The first is the most injudicious

 

[Renae]

I'm not the one calling it Obama's tax hike. :rofl

Does this mean that Reverend's source is biased because they didn't give credit to the Dems for that tax cut? It merely said "GOP Congress".

Are you here to debate or just see how much of a rise you can get out of folks with trivialities?

It IS Obama's tax hike cause he's the "President" and he's not pushing to make them permanent. Yes, we all know the GOP passed it, we all know they were "temporary" and those of us interested in facts admit the GOP was forced to put a sunset on the tax cuts to get Dem votes.

Now, if you want to discuss this, and do so like an adult, aces, let's go. But anymore of this nonsense and I'll just not respond. Balls in your court, mature discussion/debate or more of the... same from you.

 

[MaggieD]

That's just how Andrew Carnegie felt about it. -- The point is you accumulated the 10 of millions on the backs of your community.

What are you talking about? One can easily accumulate $1.5 million in assets without doing it on "the backs of your commnunity." If you can't imagine that, you just aren't trying hard enough in your own life.

 

[Renae]

No, you paraphrased inaccurately.

If you wanted clarification, then you would have said, "I'm not familiar with those quotes, who said that, what did he mean?"

If you're really interested here is one of his essays on wealth. Read it and get back to me, so I know you have a baseline understanding of what I'm talking about.

Pay particular attention to:

Good for him. That doesn't clarify why you chose that statement.

The point is you accumulated the 10 of millions on the backs of your community

You were responding to commentary about earning wealth.

Now, clarify on subject, not off into tangent land please.

 

[Thorgasm]

Are you here to debate or just see how much of a rise you can get out of folks with trivialities?

It IS Obama's tax hike cause he's the "President" and he's not pushing to make them permanent. Yes, we all know the GOP passed it, we all know they were "temporary" and those of us interested in facts admit the GOP was forced to put a sunset on the tax cuts to get Dem votes.

Now, if you want to discuss this, and do so like an adult, aces, let's go. But anymore of this nonsense and I'll just not respond. Balls in your court, mature discussion/debate or more of the... same from you.

Trivialities?

What you are arguing is when Bush and the GOP were in charge, it was the Dems fault. Now that Obama and the Dems are in charge, it's the Dems fault. I am seeing a pattern here.

This is despite the fact that you acknowledge that Obama doesn't have to do a single thing and it's somehow spun that he is raising taxes. He had no part of this legislation you know? In fact, he is following the GOP plan that had a little help from Dems.

The EGTRRA in 2001 had 28 Democrats vote for it with a passage of 240-154. 12 Democratic Senators voted for it passing the bill 62-38.

The JGTRRA in 2003 had 7 Democrats in the House of Representatives vote for it to bring it to a 231-200 passage. The Senate had 2 Democrats vote for it bringing the total to 50-50 with Vice President Cheney passing the deciding vote.

Now, the real reason that they had to put the sunset provision in there is because it would cause too big of a deficit which would trigger the "Byrd Rule" and it kept it in compliance with the PAYGO law.

rof You can't call people "sport" and "aces" and then pretend to be the one acting mature.

 

[Geo Patric]

please, indie, continue.... you make excellent arguments. get used to the demeaning tone in your discoursant... it is his only real weapon.

geo.

 

[Renae]

Trivialities?

What you are arguing is when Bush and the GOP were in charge, it was the Dems fault. Now that Obama and the Dems are in charge, it's the Dems fault. I am seeing a pattern here.

Of your own making. The GOP didn't have the votes to secure passage without bowing to Dem demands.

This is despite the fact that you acknowledge that Obama doesn't have to do a single thing and it's somehow spun that he is raising taxes. He had no part of this legislation you know? In fact, he is following the GOP plan that had a little help from Dems.

Ah so he has no responsibility. Got it, it's all Bush's fault.

The EGTRRA in 2001 had 28 Democrats vote for it with a passage of 240-154. 12 Democratic Senators voted for it passing the bill 62-38.

That's right, the GOP NEEDED Dem votes.

The JGTRRA in 2003 had 7 Democrats in the House of Representatives vote for it to bring it to a 231-200 passage. The Senate had 2 Democrats vote for it bringing the total to 50-50 with Vice President Cheney passing the deciding vote.

Again, needed Dem votes. Both times. Thanks for proving my point.

Now, the real reason that they had to put the sunset provision in there is because it would cause too big of a deficit which would trigger the "Byrd Rule" and it kept it in compliance with the PAYGO law.

rof You can't call people "sport" and "aces" and then pretend to be the one acting mature.

Except that the Tax Cuts created the highest level of revenue in the HISTORY of the IRS. But let's ignore that, makes the whole "Deficit caused by tax cuts" to look.. well wrong.

At least you tried, thanks for playing tho.

 

[Thorgasm]

Of your own making. The GOP didn't have the votes to secure passage without bowing to Dem demands.

No, per the Byrd Rule, any senator could block the bill if it went over ten years.

Ah so he has no responsibility. Got it, it's all Bush's fault.

He didn't draft or vote on this legislation.

That's right, the GOP NEEDED Dem votes.

Again, needed Dem votes. Both times. Thanks for proving my point.

Yes, they needed votes, but without the sunset, the bill could have been blocked by any one of the "Nay" votes in the senate. This obviously means that the sunset was included due to the law, not as a compromise. If they didn't include the sunset, it was sure to be blocked.

Except that the Tax Cuts created the highest level of revenue in the HISTORY of the IRS. But let's ignore that, makes the whole "Deficit caused by tax cuts" to look.. well wrong.

At least you tried, thanks for playing tho.

Nice spin. The PAYGO law takes spending into account. Despite all that revenue, they ran a deficit.

Here you are again arguing against what you wish I said. I didn't say that the cuts cause deficits. Now, are you going to put up some facts or are you going to keep up this folly?

 

[Renae]

No, per the Byrd Rule, any senator could block the bill if it went over ten years.



He didn't draft or vote on this legislation.



Yes, they needed votes, but without the sunset, the bill could have been blocked by any one of the "Nay" votes in the senate. This obviously means that the sunset was included due to the law, not as a compromise. If they didn't include the sunset, it was sure to be blocked.




Nice spin. The PAYGO law takes spending into account. Despite all that revenue, they ran a deficit.

Here you are again arguing against what you wish I said. I didn't say that the cuts cause deficits. Now, are you going to put up some facts or are you going to keep up this folly?

I know the Byrd rule, doesn't apply here. The GOP wanted PERMANENT tax cuts, couldn't' get the votes, had to sunset them. That's just that.

 

[Geo Patric]

more sneering ... and more disingenuous pseudo-information.

oh, what the hell.... guess i'll just have to jump in....

the republicans are as 'responsible' for the two Bush tax cuts as the democrats are responsible for the Health Care Reform bill. In both cases, republicans came up short. Yep, they needed Dem votes. But.. they did not get them, not sufficient numbers of them to pass the bill, anyway. Both tax cuts were passed via 'reconciliation'.

so, Independent thinker is quite correct in labeling them republican tax cuts. they were proposed, written, sponsored and passed into law by republicans.

you need to gind a new game to play... you stink at this one.
geo.

 

[Thorgasm]

I know the Byrd rule, doesn't apply here. The GOP wanted PERMANENT tax cuts, couldn't' get the votes, had to sunset them. That's just that.

If you knew the Byrd rule you wouldn't be saying this.

You haven't cited a single thing here. I thought you wanted adult debate? What gives?

You have to do better than the equivalent of "Nuh-uh!"

 

[hazlnut]

I know the Byrd rule, doesn't apply here. The GOP wanted PERMANENT tax cuts, couldn't' get the votes, had to sunset them. That's just that.

Have you finished your reading assignment yet? First things first.

 

[Donc]

"120 Days to Go Until the Largest Tax Hikes in History."

And when the sunsets I will lift a glass of good red in celebration to to this albatross that the Republicans threw on the neck of the economy during wartime. :drink Good riddance.

 

[Geo Patric]

You have to do better than the equivalent of "Nuh-uh!"

i am amazed at the number of folks that think that a legitimate argument.

geo.

 

[Redress]

Except that the Tax Cuts created the highest level of revenue in the HISTORY of the IRS. But let's ignore that, makes the whole "Deficit caused by tax cuts" to look.. well wrong.

At least you tried, thanks for playing tho.

Seriously, in this day and age, I find it amazing that people do not understand the difference between correlation and causation. I worry for our education system.