Daniel, that is really quite interesting... Especially when tying dates and actions together. Nice going!
Raising the debt ceiling
- Thread starter Gordon Gray
- Start date
Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:
tsv_1
Well-known member
Out of EVERYONE on captial hill, Obama appears to be the only adult. Look how long he extended the olive branch in every attempt to cross the aisle. Took him way to long to figure out those were wasted efforts. While he has a long list of outstanding accomplishments, he's failed miserably on a few - OK, more than a few. He wasn't "right" enough for the GOP (they ironically view him as an extreme leftist), and he's been way too far right for most democrats. He's been too busy trying to compromise with the toddlers and it's left him looking like something less than a strong leader - in most everyone's eyes. This has led to one of the most assinine panels of GOP front-runners this world has ever seen... Buffoons, religeous extremists, self-deluded "idea-men"... the press doesn't even have to dig... most of these clowns bury themselves. Just point a camera and wait a few minutes. It's truly sickening. Cain and Perry?? WTF?? How are they even in this thing? There is a HUGE swath of the American right who feel so compelled to "take this country back" that they are willing to support these cartoon characters that "entertain" us on stage every other week. They have ingested so much hatred and vitriol from the likes of Rush and Hannity that they have feverishly lined up behind Mitch and his "remove Obama at all costs" mentality. They are screwing themselves and don't even know it - support big business, support the rich... they are the job makers... really? The irony is so thick it's opaque. While some big business is heavily invested in community and charity - and view jobs as a precious commodity, the vast majority is not. They cater to wallstreet either directly or indirectly (cut costs so our shares will stay afloat) - the larger the balance sheet, the "better" the business. I was reading somewhere that big business in the US holds over $17 trillion in unused assests... just cash sitting there making interest in low risk portfolios... just sitting there NOT investing it in putting more people to work. This is what greed is... this is what greed does.
And yet, the right continues to propagate the hateful unthinking talking points of their beloved pundits. I'm not giving a the Dems a pass either. Congress has a shameful record on both sides of the aisle. Beyond shameful... some would say treasonous.
I'd be laughing if it wasn't such a serious situation. Obama has screwed the pooch and lost a lot of support (though ironically, his campaign contribution rate is outpacing that of his record 2008 run) - on the other side, we have a the current flock that is almost indescribably inept... and their supporters. Cain's campaign contributions increased when those bad-behavior charges surfaced... they increased! The right is so sure that the lame-stream media and the left are conspiring to bring down these asshats, that they respond to verifiable criminal charges with financial support! They are so lost in the haze of "righteousness" that they boo the gay solder who is over there risking his life... so they can boo him. Ugh!!!
Sorry... just needed to vent. I just don't like where ANY of this is going. Where are the adults??? Hunstman seems like the only half-reasonable guy and yet he's scraping the bottom of the polls. Why does everything have to be so effing upside down?
And yet, the right continues to propagate the hateful unthinking talking points of their beloved pundits. I'm not giving a the Dems a pass either. Congress has a shameful record on both sides of the aisle. Beyond shameful... some would say treasonous.
I'd be laughing if it wasn't such a serious situation. Obama has screwed the pooch and lost a lot of support (though ironically, his campaign contribution rate is outpacing that of his record 2008 run) - on the other side, we have a the current flock that is almost indescribably inept... and their supporters. Cain's campaign contributions increased when those bad-behavior charges surfaced... they increased! The right is so sure that the lame-stream media and the left are conspiring to bring down these asshats, that they respond to verifiable criminal charges with financial support! They are so lost in the haze of "righteousness" that they boo the gay solder who is over there risking his life... so they can boo him. Ugh!!!
Sorry... just needed to vent. I just don't like where ANY of this is going. Where are the adults??? Hunstman seems like the only half-reasonable guy and yet he's scraping the bottom of the polls. Why does everything have to be so effing upside down?
The simple fact of the matter is there is a large swath of voters on both sides of the aisle who don't look for an intelligent, reasonable candidate who espouses practical solutions and compromise to be their party's standard-bearer. They look for an ego-driven, self-centric charismatic who espouses the rhetoric drawn from the extreme end of whatever party they support. Our candidates are going to be no more intelligent or capable of reason than the people that vote for them, and a large portion of the electorate is fairly deluded, ignorant, uninformed, or all the above.
After experiencing this type of thing time and time again isn't it obvious that we are not hiring leaders but POLITiCIANS. Imagine trying to run a project with a team where half of the team was against u right from the start and wanted to see u fail. What a hopeless mess.
and with that being said I wonder what group (educated profession) makes up the largest number of our elected goverment officials ?? .......
Gordon Gray
Well-known member
and with that being said I wonder what group (educated profession) makes up the largest number of our elected goverment officials ?? .......
Good question Dave. I don't know the answer. Attorneys / law degree?
GaryG
Well-known member
Good guess. It is law for the Senate and Law is near the top for the House. However many of them seem to mis-identify themselves as "public servants". Check it out starting on page 5.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41647.pdf
Yes, I don't consider myself to be a lawyer either. Just a public servant to this fine forum.
tsv_1
Well-known member
Here's a true public servant - from my home state... a republican no-less who rejects the party line on the issue of taxing the rich. While I generally do not vote republican (big surprise there), I actually did vote for Susan last time around... and likely will again if she continues to run.
<><><>
WASHINGTON -- Moderate Republican Sen. Susan Collins broke party ranks Wednesday, supporting a tax hike on millionaires and billionaires in order to fund a tax break for working Americans.
The senator from Maine also skewered a key GOP talking point by differentiating the wealthy, described in nearly all Republican rhetoric as "job creators," from the people who actually create jobs -- otherwise known as employers.
Democrats have proposed cutting payroll taxes by 3.1 percent, which could put about $1,500 back in the pockets of the average household. Republicans are supportive of the tax cut, but adamantly oppose the Democratic plan to pay for it by levying a surtax on income above $1 million.
"We're not arguing against extending this payroll tax cut," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Wednesday on the Senate floor. "We just think we shouldn't be punishing job creators to pay for it."
"If, in fact, we can find common ground on these extensions, I think you can take to the bank the fact that they will be paid for," House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said later.
But Collins, often a maverick in her party, made a telling departure from the prevailing orthodoxy, arguing that job creators and the rich are not one and the same, and that actual job creators are businesses, such as small corporations and partnerships, that hire people.
"What I've been looking at is can you carve out those businesses from the surtax, and you can," Collins told reporters just outside the Senate chamber, explaining that there's a difference between working enterprises and idle rich.
"There is already a body of well-developed law in the tax code having to do with active business participation versus passive business participation," she said.
"I think that's the answer to this dilemma. I do not want to impose additional taxes on the employers at a time when our economy is very fragile and we want to encourage them to hire," Collins said. "On the other hand, I do believe that multimillionaires and billionaires who are not running businesses could pay more of their income to help us deal with the deficit."
Congressional leaders' offices did not immediately react to Collins' solution, which she described as being in the "embryonic" stage.
But she said she has spoken with them and with some of her colleagues -- and they might be receptive.
"I believe some are intrigued by the idea," Collins said. "What we've been hearing over and over again is that the reason Republicans are opposed to the surtax is because of the concern of its impact on job creation. Well, if you carve out employers, you take away that argument."
Collins may be breaking ground on taxing the rich, but another New England Republican -- Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts -- had already broken ranks with his leaders Tuesday, saying the payroll tax cut should not be paid for, which avoids the issue of taxing millionaires entirely.
Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) also reportedly suggested he might support some sort of surtax.
Democrats saw such statements as signs that their message accusing Republicans of favoring the rich was working.
"Cracks are starting to emerge in the Republicans' wall of opposition to asking millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share," said a spokesman for Senate Democrats in a statement. "The Republicans are sensing that the debate is slipping away from them on this issue."
<><><>
WASHINGTON -- Moderate Republican Sen. Susan Collins broke party ranks Wednesday, supporting a tax hike on millionaires and billionaires in order to fund a tax break for working Americans.
The senator from Maine also skewered a key GOP talking point by differentiating the wealthy, described in nearly all Republican rhetoric as "job creators," from the people who actually create jobs -- otherwise known as employers.
Democrats have proposed cutting payroll taxes by 3.1 percent, which could put about $1,500 back in the pockets of the average household. Republicans are supportive of the tax cut, but adamantly oppose the Democratic plan to pay for it by levying a surtax on income above $1 million.
"We're not arguing against extending this payroll tax cut," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Wednesday on the Senate floor. "We just think we shouldn't be punishing job creators to pay for it."
"If, in fact, we can find common ground on these extensions, I think you can take to the bank the fact that they will be paid for," House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said later.
But Collins, often a maverick in her party, made a telling departure from the prevailing orthodoxy, arguing that job creators and the rich are not one and the same, and that actual job creators are businesses, such as small corporations and partnerships, that hire people.
"What I've been looking at is can you carve out those businesses from the surtax, and you can," Collins told reporters just outside the Senate chamber, explaining that there's a difference between working enterprises and idle rich.
"There is already a body of well-developed law in the tax code having to do with active business participation versus passive business participation," she said.
"I think that's the answer to this dilemma. I do not want to impose additional taxes on the employers at a time when our economy is very fragile and we want to encourage them to hire," Collins said. "On the other hand, I do believe that multimillionaires and billionaires who are not running businesses could pay more of their income to help us deal with the deficit."
Congressional leaders' offices did not immediately react to Collins' solution, which she described as being in the "embryonic" stage.
But she said she has spoken with them and with some of her colleagues -- and they might be receptive.
"I believe some are intrigued by the idea," Collins said. "What we've been hearing over and over again is that the reason Republicans are opposed to the surtax is because of the concern of its impact on job creation. Well, if you carve out employers, you take away that argument."
Collins may be breaking ground on taxing the rich, but another New England Republican -- Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts -- had already broken ranks with his leaders Tuesday, saying the payroll tax cut should not be paid for, which avoids the issue of taxing millionaires entirely.
Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) also reportedly suggested he might support some sort of surtax.
Democrats saw such statements as signs that their message accusing Republicans of favoring the rich was working.
"Cracks are starting to emerge in the Republicans' wall of opposition to asking millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share," said a spokesman for Senate Democrats in a statement. "The Republicans are sensing that the debate is slipping away from them on this issue."
Gordon Gray
Well-known member
Todd,
Thanks for sharing.
Ms. Collin's attitude should be a role model for both parties.
Get off the "talking points / ideology train"" and start dealing with reality in a true / cooperative bi-partisanship manner to address the real problems, we as a Country, are facing.
GG
Thanks for sharing.
Ms. Collin's attitude should be a role model for both parties.
Get off the "talking points / ideology train"" and start dealing with reality in a true / cooperative bi-partisanship manner to address the real problems, we as a Country, are facing.
GG
Completely agree, both with Senator Collins (and especially her attitude!), and the sentiments expressed by Gordon. And Todd, I also thank you for sharing. Maybe, just maybe...
Regarding taxation... I would just like to ask a couple of questions - and maybe some can reply... I always here this 'fair share' concept... that those that earn more should pay more. So it boils down to math and semantics.... When people say the rich are not paying their fair share ... what do they mean exactly - read the story problems below...and as a precursor - I am no expert with taxes....
Example 1:
Guy makes one million - pays 280,000 in taxes (lets just call it 28% tax bracket)
Guy makes one hundred K -- pays 28,000 in taxes (28% tax bracket for simplicity)
Did the millionaire pay his 'fair share' above?
OR
Example 2:
Guy makes one million - pays 15,000 in taxes because he has so many write offs.
Guy makes 100k - pays 28,000 because he has no write offs.
Is this what the 'fair sharers' are saying ? or do they truly believe that if a guy makes 1 mill - and has 720K in the bank at the end of the day -- he should really sign up for more - because he can afford it....
I'm just curious... This is typical politics quite frankly - Some people deal in percentages... some deal in real dollars... and then the numbers get twisted based on whatever side you seem to favor. I just really don't know the answer when people make the arguement that rich people don't pay their fair share... Is it example 1 or example 2?
Example 1:
Guy makes one million - pays 280,000 in taxes (lets just call it 28% tax bracket)
Guy makes one hundred K -- pays 28,000 in taxes (28% tax bracket for simplicity)
Did the millionaire pay his 'fair share' above?
OR
Example 2:
Guy makes one million - pays 15,000 in taxes because he has so many write offs.
Guy makes 100k - pays 28,000 because he has no write offs.
Is this what the 'fair sharers' are saying ? or do they truly believe that if a guy makes 1 mill - and has 720K in the bank at the end of the day -- he should really sign up for more - because he can afford it....
I'm just curious... This is typical politics quite frankly - Some people deal in percentages... some deal in real dollars... and then the numbers get twisted based on whatever side you seem to favor. I just really don't know the answer when people make the arguement that rich people don't pay their fair share... Is it example 1 or example 2?
jmschnur
Well-known member
Many very rich are in your number 2 these days. Be good to get statistics.
tsv_1
Well-known member
The problem is that "fair" is a relative term that means different things to different people. Another problem is that the current tax code is a tragic pile of paper that includes too many loopholes that the wealthy can and do leverage. So are they paying their fair share by doing everything they can to minimize their share? Many would say "no" though some would say "hell yes".
If a true flat-tax were adopted, then "fair" would be a flat percentage that everyone pays... so yes, the millionaire would pay ten times more than the 100Kaire and that would be "fair". But as you say, not everyone would view it the same way.
IMO, a consumption tax would be the "fairest" because everyone would be held to the same measuring stick. A millionaire could choose to pay only as much as someone less wealthy simply by buying fewer goods and services.
Having said all that... I think the most ridiculous thing is that revoking the Bush tax cuts would put us back to Clinton era tax brackets... brackets that no one ever (loudly) complained about before. Funny how perceptions change.
jmschnur
Well-known member
Interesting that the Bush tax cuts seem to coincide with the onset of the US economic decline.
what will be more interesting is 'IF' , you can say the same thing with regards to tax increases and economic resurgance !!
Last edited:
BobF
Well-known member
There you go Todd, Flat tax.
Haven't been on in awhile but thanks for the fun at your place this summer with my son and I.
Best, Bob
tsv_1
Well-known member
Hi Bob... wondered where you scampered off to... welcome back
BobF
Well-known member
PM me when you get a chance,Hi Bob... wondered where you scampered off to... welcome back
Best, Bob
