DescentBB

DON'T DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!



Do not give into the "tax increases on the wealthy" without concessions on Entitlement reform and the Tax codes in general.

Don't believe the Democrats lie that they'll negotiate it later if you give in on this now. IT WONT HAPPEN. they are lying... the Democrats have never and will never cut entitlements. all they do it lie to the nation and call it Cuts by the GOP when the GOP doesn't want to spend as much as they do, this cannot be sustained. we are close approaching 42 TRILLION dollars that need to be paid out on Medicare and Medicaid, thats 42 trillion dollars that we do not have. move over Greece, here comes the US debt at Warp speed



Ok I feel much better now

Thomas Jefferson wrote:“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.”

current national polling--
selective tax increase on the wealthy 62% for, 38% against

cutting back entitlements 36% for, 64% against


reforming tax code 46% for, 54% against


So, CUDA, you are urging the GOP to commit political suicide.

and I should care about polling in a robin-hood society??? of course the have not's are going to vote to take from the haves DUH THERE ARE MORE OF THEM.
that's just a damn stupid stance on your part. the Democrats, Unions and MSNBC make the rich out to be the demons it's not surprising

I'm urging the GOP to prevent Societal suicide. if it takes their Death to save this nation then so be it. be man enough to sacrifice for the good of all. but the President doesn't have the political courage to do that. instead of being in the negotiations himself he calls in his surrogates to handle it, then goes on TV with a campaign speech. that's leadership

I'm not arguing against raising taxes. I have said many times. raise them ON EVERYONE. but you MUST cut spending. I'm a business man and I run a multimillion dollar a year shop. we do 5 million a year in sales and 2 million a year in gross. deficit spending will fail. it always does. eventually the money runs out and the expenses cannot be sustained. thats first grade economics. I guess the Democrats skipped class that day and double up on the political dogma course

taxing the rich is only a political ploy for the Democrats "class Warfare" it will do absolutely NOTHING to stop the fiscal cliff. at best it will buy a few months. AT BEST. the Democrats are just buying votes. you know it. I know it. even the poor know it. they just don't care because they are getting theirs.
They play the GOP out to be the bad guys while themselves spending like drunken sailors on whores in a port. They lie trying to portray themselves as the Savior of the poor, it's a lie. it's an unsustainable lie. so I ask who really is the bad guy. the fiscally responsible one, or the one that lives on their maxed out credit cards and drives us to economic collapse.



History shows that every great "Democratic" nation collapsed economically. once the entitlements started, people continued to vote themselves more and more. which eventually lead to the downfall of that society.. Greece, Rome, Britain. all the same

those that forget their past are doomed to repeat it

Ben Franklin wrote:"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."

If the tax rates were harder to change things would be a lot less argumentative in the US.

it's all political hyperbole by the President. you don't need to "Raise taxes" on the rich. that's political class warfare speech. all you need to do it eliminate loop holes and the results would be the same if not better. he's pandering.

it's purely divisive politics and isn't necessary. and this from a man that outed himself as the great uniter

Unless you can get the GOP to make permanent that reduction in spending must precede tax rate reduction then the US will follow southern Europe off the cliff.

fliptw wrote:Unless you can get the GOP to make permanent that reduction in spending must precede tax rate reduction then the US will follow southern Europe off the cliff.

Then that takes me back to the OP.

DO NOT ACCEPT THE TAX INCREASES, without a written guarantee of cuts.

if any sane person believes that the democrats will honor the "if you give us a Tax increase now we'll talk spending cuts after the first of the year" crap, then they are a fool. there is as much if not more pressure on the Democrats to get this done than there is for the GOP. they are the ones in power. we know people like TC will start off with the "party of no " BS again and Slick wants to call it political suicide for the GOP. I say it's political suicide for BOTH parties, and it's economic suicide for this nation.

The bill collector has already grabbed the keys to his car and he's heading out the door.

No, you need the revenue first, then you can tackle cutting spending, then reduce tax rates.

That means in the end, taxes have to go up for everyone, and not go down as much.

fliptw wrote:No, you need the revenue first, then you can tackle cutting spending, then reduce tax rates.

That means in the end, taxes have to go up for everyone, and not go down as much.

Huh?

You mean to tell me that you can't cut the budget without first raising taxes? You're gonna have to try to explain that one to me. Setting income and setting spending aren't sequential activities... They're related to each other but there isn't anything out there saying that (for the US government, who can set its own income and borrow all it wants) one is dependent upon the other.

I want spending to just go down, and I don't want taxes to have to go up at all. Don't tell me it can't get done, because I'll tell you about how it can. My solutions won't actually happen.... but don't tell me that it's an impossibility.

funny, when the economy went into the toilet in 08. the first thing I did was Cut. EVERYTHING. I got rid of my cable, newspaper, life insurance, 401K contributions, even the extra cups of coffee the wife i would got to Starbucks for. EVERYTHING.

in life the first thing you do is control expenses. in business the first thing you do it control expenses. THEN you focus on revenue and building the business. if you're hemorrhaging money you'll continue to hemorrhage money. and it will take you 3 times as much work to balance your budget otherwise. anything else is a bad business model and will most likely fail,

fliptw wrote:...you need the revenue first, then you can tackle cutting spending...

CUDA wrote:...control expenses. THEN you focus on revenue...

Neither of the above make sense to me. If increasing revenue and controlling spending are independent, why should we enforce one over the other?

BOTH need to happen, and without the usual partisan petty exceptions ("Let's raise taxes, but only on the rich!", "Let's cut spending, except for defense!").

Because you can't learn discipline if you don’t cut spending “before” increasing revenue…ask any junkie.

Prove to me first that you have the discipline to cut spending, then I will support revenue.

.......................

In my business revenue enhancement is an ongoing everyday thing, and cost cutting only kicks in when the outgoing exceeds incoming. It’s called “deficit spending” for a reason.

I can’t simply increase my revenues with a flick of a pen like governments can, and although I don’t expect governments to operate like a business or family budget, I do believe certain principals apply, or at least should.

And, one of those principals is discipline, probably second only to fiscal responsibility.

CUDA wrote:and I should care about polling in a robin-hood society??? of course the have not's are going to vote to take from the haves DUH THERE ARE MORE OF THEM.
that's just a damn stupid stance on your part. the Democrats, Unions and MSNBC make the rich out to be the demons it's not surprising

So why do you think the rich are angels who are just victims of the sordid underclass? Don't you get it? They are just as corruptible as any other normal person is. They are HUMAN BEINGS, who are just as susceptible to avarice, greed and the lust for power as any other human! In fact, they are more so because of the vast wealth, money and connections they have in the political machine. Me. I have no such power or influence. I'm just another sick retiree dependent on their machinations of the market now to survive. In my opinion, the super rich carry around more sin than any worker in this day and age, so quit putting the wealthy on a pedestal of virtue. They've fallen off that years ago.

You want to blame the masses for our economic troubles. All they've done is take the fruit from the tree, like any normal person would. The super wealthy have now cut down the damn tree and are selling the wood for firewood, not for rebuilding, and they're making us feel bad for them because we made them do it.

Foil wrote:

fliptw wrote:...you need the revenue first, then you can tackle cutting spending...

CUDA wrote:...control expenses. THEN you focus on revenue...

Neither of the above make sense to me. If increasing revenue and controlling spending are independent, why should we enforce one over the other?

BOTH need to happen, and without the usual partisan petty exceptions ("Let's raise taxes, but only on the rich!", "Let's cut spending, except for defense!").

an example in my industry. I spend $35,000+ a month on paint. and I make about 10 - 15% profit on that. industry standard is about 35% profit. I cannot charge more money for my materials since that is regulated (limited) my the insurance company. so my only option to get my profit margins higher is to control my costs. there are a couple of ways i can do that.

1. I can buy a cheaper product,
since my income remains the same I make a larger margin.

2. control my waste.

every time that we have to redo a job I lose money. not only in materials that I cannot recover because we screwed up, but also in the lost time where we can be working on something else that actually generates new revenue.

so in my second example alone the first thing I did was control my expenses, and in controlling my expenses I increased my revenue by saving waste and moving onto the next income generating job

tunnelcat wrote:

CUDA wrote:and I should care about polling in a robin-hood society??? of course the have not's are going to vote to take from the haves DUH THERE ARE MORE OF THEM.
that's just a damn stupid stance on your part. the Democrats, Unions and MSNBC make the rich out to be the demons it's not surprising

So why do you think the rich are angels who are just victims of the sordid underclass? Don't you get it?

you expect me to answer that stupid comment with a response???

did I say they were angles??


just go back to watching MSNBC and be happy

It wouldn’t be so bad if the government stole from the rich to give to the poor, the problem is the government takes from everyone, to keep it for themselves, and their friends.

......................

“did I say they were angles??”

I guess the rich are mostly Right Angles...huh…

ya but they do it in the guise of helping out the little guy.
they lie to us.

the government has no intention of helping the little people. they have only one objective. to stay in power and will bribe you with your own or someone else's money to remain there

CUDA wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:

CUDA wrote:and I should care about polling in a robin-hood society??? of course the have not's are going to vote to take from the haves DUH THERE ARE MORE OF THEM.
that's just a damn stupid stance on your part. the Democrats, Unions and MSNBC make the rich out to be the demons it's not surprising

So why do you think the rich are angels who are just victims of the sordid underclass? Don't you get it?

you expect me to answer that stupid comment with a response???

did I say they were angles??


just go back to watching MSNBC and be happy

You did say that the Dems and that liberal MSNBC are making the rich out to be demons. Buy the way, the rich do have all the angles. That implied that you thought the rich were innocent victims of bad press. Well, I've got news for you, they aren't victims, they're the problem, and it's gotten so transparent that people are waking up to them. And yes Spidey, the government's the problem too because it's infected with.......wait for it........RICH PEOPLE! I'm sure that Republicans, and most of the Dems, won't point that out and neither will Fox News. So that leaves a few tried and true liberals and MSNBC.

Wait, how did this become a Fox vs. MSNBC topic?

<glances over last few posts> Ah, yes...

tunnelcat wrote:You did say that the Dems and that liberal MSNBC are making the rich out to be demons.

then are show me where I'm wrong, because I'm not and they are, and you know it.

That implied that you thought the rich were innocent victims of bad press.

that's what you read into it because thats what you wanted to read into it. thats not what I said. being rich is not a bad thing. but the left wants to make you think it is. just as being poor isn't a bad thing either but the left wants you to think it is.

Well, I've got news for you, they aren't victims, they're the problem,

Prove your accusation that all rich people are the problem. ya know what you cannot because it's not true. and when something is not true guess what. it a Lie. so quit spreading the liberal lies. rich people are not the problem. Powerful rich people are LEARN THE DIFFERENCE and politicians are Rich powerful people that want to stay rich and powerful

how typically liberal of you to blanket categorize an entire group of people. anytime someone does something you dont like you scream OFF WITH THEIR HEADS

Foil wrote:Wait, how did this become a Fox vs. MSNBC topic?

<glances over last few posts> Ah, yes...

only because TC joined the conversation

In addition to raising rates on high-income earners, the current Democrat proposal includes raising taxes on capital gains and dividends, extending the payroll tax holiday, raising estate taxes and another $600 billion in new spending, according to those familiar with talks. Democrats are pushing for new stimulus spending, including $50 billion for 2013, and raising the debt ceiling for good.

there ya go. no intention of cutting spending. all they want to do it SPEND SPEND SPEND. and increasing taxes will just give them more reason to do it.

dont do it, they are lying to you.

They Lied to Reagan when they said they'd cut spending and didn't.
They Lied to HW when they said they'd cut spending and didn't
and they are lying now.

CUDA wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:You did say that the Dems and that liberal MSNBC are making the rich out to be demons.

then are show me where I'm wrong, because I'm not and they are, and you know it.

Well, you are right on that point. I guess it's not in Fox News' best interests to bite the hand that feeds them. And I know the Dems do it because they want to pick up political points. They're not even shy about it. But they are not far from the truth. A lot of the wealthy have had low tax rates for so long, they now don't want to go back to paying a little more AGAIN (like in the past, when it didn't kill them then) to support a more stable society. In fact, I haven't seen the Bush tax cuts help the economy grow worth a damn in the last 12 years, so why do they keep saying they will? Do the Republicans think that if they bash their trickle down mantra into our heads enough, we'll finally believe it? All those tax cuts have done is ramp up the debt, nothing else.

Oh, and I like the new Republican solution for closing tax loopholes, eliminate the mortgage and child deductions. That will not affect the rich, it will affect the middle class and the housing market. Republicans are still trying to protect the wealthy at all costs, forgetting that the middle class is what made this country prosper.

CUDA wrote:

tunnelcat wrote: That implied that you thought the rich were innocent victims of bad press.

that's what you read into it because thats what you wanted to read into it. thats not what I said. being rich is not a bad thing. but the left wants to make you think it is. just as being poor isn't a bad thing either but the left wants you to think it is.

Oh, I don't think it's bad to be rich. There are many decent rich people, Warren Buffet seems to have a conscience. I just believe in the saying: "Absolute power corrupts absolutely", and many people who become wealthy soon find out that being wealthy is just not enough of a fix for them, so they seek political power to protect that wealth, becoming corrupt and self-serving, dropping all scruples towards their fellow man in the process.

CUDA wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Well, I've got news for you, they aren't victims, they're the problem,

Prove your accusation that all rich people are the problem. ya know what you cannot because it's not true. and when something is not true guess what. it a Lie. so quit spreading the liberal lies. rich people are not the problem. Powerful rich people are LEARN THE DIFFERENCE and politicians are Rich powerful people that want to stay rich and powerful

Not all the wealthy are the problem. But it doesn't take but a few to cause a lot of problems. Powerful rich people sometimes get into politics, because they favor certain political actions that will favor them and their portfolio and empire. Sheldon Adelson, The Koch Brothers, The Waltons, even Karl Rove, are good examples of the rich meddling in politics to benefit their own agenda and themselves, not that of the whole country. None of these people I would call saints.

CUDA wrote:how typically liberal of you to blanket categorize an entire group of people. anytime someone does something you dont like you scream OFF WITH THEIR HEADS

You're mis-characterizing my position. I'm not against becoming wealthy in this country. It's what drives people to work hard, build something worthwhile and excel. What I dislike are people who become wealthy not through hard work, but through deception and theft. Hedge Fund managers, venture capitalists, trust fund brats and ponzi schemers fall into this category. White collar criminals are no different than blue collar ones. The wealthy ones just tend to get away with it more because some of it is called "legitimate" to run the markets.

tunnelcat wrote:Not all the wealthy are the problem. But it doesn't take but a few to cause a lot of problems. Powerful rich people sometimes get into politics, because they favor certain political actions that will favor them and their portfolio and empire. Sheldon Adelson, The Koch Brothers, The Waltons, even Karl Rove, are good examples of the rich meddling in politics to benefit their own agenda and themselves, not that of the whole country. None of these people I would call saints.

you mean like the people on the left like George Soros, John Kerry and much of Hollywood and the likes that have money and dabble in politics??

it's on both sides TC dont be duped into thinking it's not. that's just a narrow agenda driven point of view

CUDA wrote:how typically liberal of you to blanket categorize an entire group of people. anytime someone does something you dont like you scream OFF WITH THEIR HEADS

You're mis-characterizing my position. I'm not against becoming wealthy in this country. It's what drives people to work hard, build something worthwhile and excel. What I dislike are people who become wealthy not through hard work, but through deception and theft. Hedge Fund managers, venture capitalists, trust fund brats and ponzi schemers fall into this category. White collar criminals are no different than blue collar ones. The wealthy ones just tend to get away with it more because some of it is called "legitimate" to run the markets.

so based on your characterization of the "rich" I should kick everyone off welfare because of the people that work the system, even though there is a legitimate need for most. it's the bad apples that would require me to dump it for everyone. is that right

Lol, Warren Buffett only wants rich people to pay more taxes so the government can afford to subsidize his grand power generation schemes.

Spidey, are you confusing Warren Buffet with Boone Pickens?

Nope, one is wind the other is gas.

Pun intended.

.....and a right funny one, at that!

CUDA wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Not all the wealthy are the problem. But it doesn't take but a few to cause a lot of problems. Powerful rich people sometimes get into politics, because they favor certain political actions that will favor them and their portfolio and empire. Sheldon Adelson, The Koch Brothers, The Waltons, even Karl Rove, are good examples of the rich meddling in politics to benefit their own agenda and themselves, not that of the whole country. None of these people I would call saints.

you mean like the people on the left like George Soros, John Kerry and much of Hollywood and the likes that have money and dabble in politics??

it's on both sides TC dont be duped into thinking it's not. that's just a narrow agenda driven point of view

I didn't say that all rich liberals were scions of virtue. There are a lot of pretty low liberal types I would call sleazy and undeserving of their wealth or a rotten influence on our government, and Hollywood is chock full of them. George Soros and John Kerry have been way too involved in politics for far too long for our country's own good too.

CUDA wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:You're mis-characterizing my position. I'm not against becoming wealthy in this country. It's what drives people to work hard, build something worthwhile and excel. What I dislike are people who become wealthy not through hard work, but through deception and theft. Hedge Fund managers, venture capitalists, trust fund brats and ponzi schemers fall into this category. White collar criminals are no different than blue collar ones. The wealthy ones just tend to get away with it more because some of it is called "legitimate" to run the markets.

so based on your characterization of the "rich" I should kick everyone off welfare because of the people that work the system, even though there is a legitimate need for most. it's the bad apples that would require me to dump it for everyone. is that right

Uh, are you referring to welfare, or the rich? Bad apples should be tossed out no matter whether they're spoiling the Market system, or the welfare system, rich or poor. Neither system can function fairly if there are thieves and leaches. Police the systems, have rules that can't be changed based on the whims of who's in power, so that they function as intended. Destroying something because of some abuse doesn't make sense.

It's kind of what the Republicans and Democrats are doing to SS and Medicare. The Republicans want to privatize everything to fix things, which will eventually gut it, whether you like it or not. But the Dems haven't come up with a solution either to fix the long term rising costs, especially Medicare and Medicaid. All I see is everyone digging in their partisan heels, and no good solutions to permanently fix both systems.

I still think Warren Buffet makes a good case for the wealthy paying more in taxes. And if they're going to stay sticks-in-the-mud in Congress, It's time to go back to the Clinton tax rates and fall off the fiscal cliff.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-n ... omis-pt--1

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-n ... omis-pt--2

tunnelcat wrote:It's time to go back to the Clinton tax rates and fall off the fiscal cliff.

in the long run, it might be the best thing for the nation if we did go over that cliff.

callmeslick wrote:current national polling--
selective tax increase on the wealthy 62% for, 38% against

cutting back entitlements 36% for, 64% against


reforming tax code 46% for, 54% against


So, CUDA, you are urging the GOP to commit political suicide.

The real suicide is when you let polls determine your fiscal policies

woodchip wrote:The real suicide is when you let polls determine your fiscal policies

Good point. We should have some sort of vote where the people can decide on which economic policies they want. Oh wait, we just did...

vision wrote:

woodchip wrote:The real suicide is when you let polls determine your fiscal policies

Good point. We should have some sort of vote where the people can decide on which economic policies they want. Oh wait, we just did...

ya we did. and the party that has control over the money Won. Congress.. the portion of the government that controls all spending is overwhelmingly in control by the GOP.

you do realize that the only thing that the Democrats have put on the table is more taxes, more spending and a propose constitutional violation of the separation of powers don't you?

despite the obvious tendency, through redisticting, to make incumbancy in Congress very hard to beat, the GOP LOST seats, in both houses.
Hardly a decisive win for their positions, CUDA. They know it, and as I said, within a month, enough of them will support a very close version of the President's proposal for it to carry the day.

callmeslick wrote:despite the obvious tendency, through redisticting, to make incumbancy in Congress very hard to beat, the GOP LOST seats, in both houses.

you mean like the same redistricting that the Democrats did when they controlled the house? the same redistricting that in 2010 caused the incumbent Democrats to lose the most seats in the history of Congress in one election.

Hardly a decisive win for their positions, CUDA

and yet still a win. and they are still in control of the money that runs this Government.

They know it, and as I said, within a month, enough of them will support a very close version of the President's proposal for it to carry the day.

ya know what.... I hope your wrong... I hope they call the Presidents bluff. because if they do it will save this country in the long run. either they fix this problem now and force cuts and tax increases. or the automatic cuts kick in and do the same thing. either way it's a win win for the nation long term. sometimes to get something improved you must tear down what exists and rebuild it. that is never an easy endeavor.
but just like the Retirement of the Enterprise, it was required. and now the yet to be built CVN-80 has a new name

CUDA wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:It's time to go back to the Clinton tax rates and fall off the fiscal cliff.

in the long run, it might be the best thing for the nation if we did go over that cliff.

Oh to hear Grover Norquist whine and cry on all the Sunday morning shows was priceless. And after listening to both sides stand their collective grounds this morning, I'm betting that's where we're headed. But I think Republicans will get more of the blame if it actually happens.

Probably
but you do what's right because it's right. Not because its easy or politically convenient

not going to happen. Too many GOP congressmen can read the tea leaves. Boehner has to play tough in order to have the new caucus re-elect him speaker, and that goes for other top posts. The rank and file KNOW they will get blame for this nonsense, they KNOW that Obama won solely on this tax issue, they KNOW that targetting the poor and elderly with cuts while maintaining unneeded military spending will kill them in two years. Lots of them know these things, and I'll bet 30 or 40 of them find enough self interest in the next couple, three weeks to tell Boehner and Nordquist to piss off. The only issue will be whether Boehner allows the Dem bill to get to the House floor for a vote, and if he doesn't, the GOP can kiss their collective asses goodbye, because the 2014 campaign ads would start on Jan 1.

Nice try comrade slickster on throwing up the 'ole smoke and mirror gambit. First off Obama won because of uninformed people being led by the nose by a media who positively fawned over Obama. Now that that's cleared up, quite the reverse is true from what you stated about the congressional "rank and file". Like Cuda broached, those whom you may think will flip their vote for Obama's non- plan, understand quite clearly what the tea party organization can do to congress people that appear to be getting into bed with the Democrats.

Now, since I am older than most of you, the scare tactics you hear today about the fiscal cliff are no different than similar scare tactics used by Democrats in years gone-by. It always comes down to the wire with the Democrats wanting more money so they can spend all of it and then next year try scaring people so they can get even more money. I say let the sequestration go into effect. Let the politicians figure out little things like base line budgeting doesn't have to mean a nice 7% budget increase every year. Let politicians like Princess Nancy understand she doesn't need to fly around on a nice cushy air force jet. Let department heads like the one at GSA understand he doesn't really need wine and roses surrounding him while he takes a bath. In short, let the politico's figure out what is really important and what is fluff.

Wait, if the congress is controlled by the GOP, and they control all the money, why do we have economic problems?