| The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
| And so it begins. https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9368 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Müs [ Fri Nov 09, 2012 6:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | And so it begins. |
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/09/us-usa-fiscal-idUSBRE8A80WV20121109 Obama insists on tax hike for rich as part of fiscal deal (Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Friday he was prepared to compromise with Republicans to avert a looming U.S. fiscal calamity, but insisted a tax increase for the rich must be part of any bargain. Obama, who was re-elected on Tuesday, reminded Republicans that his approach to avoiding steep tax hikes and spending cuts due in January, which could trigger another recession, had just won the backing of Americans at the polls. His spokesman said he would veto any deal that did not include an extra contribution from the wealthiest. How about you stop **** spending first, then we can discuss whether you need more money. |
|
| Author: | Lenas [ Fri Nov 09, 2012 6:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: And so it begins. |
He's been saying this for a year. Maybe more. |
|
| Author: | Müs [ Fri Nov 09, 2012 6:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: The crux of the controversy is whether to extend the portion of the Bush tax cuts that apply to income over $200,000 ($250,000 for those who are married). If they were allowed to expire as scheduled on Dec. 31, the top two income tax rates would increase to 36% and 39.6% next year, up from 33% and 35% this year. Investment tax rates would rise too from their current level of 15%. Yeah, you know what? **** it. Just raise the goddamn rate and quit **** ***** about it. But we need serious spending reforms as well. |
|
| Author: | Lenas [ Fri Nov 09, 2012 6:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: And so it begins. |
They have an expiration date for a **** REASON. Sorry Müs, not yelling at you, this whole thing about the Bush tax cuts and that it's even a talking point is just frustrating to me. I wish our politicians would just cut all the bullshit. |
|
| Author: | Aizle [ Fri Nov 09, 2012 7:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: And so it begins. |
Müs wrote: How about you stop **** spending first, then we can discuss whether you need more money. How about we stop pretending that revenue isn't part of the equation. |
|
| Author: | Müs [ Fri Nov 09, 2012 7:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: And so it begins. |
Aizle wrote: Müs wrote: How about you stop **** spending first, then we can discuss whether you need more money. How about we stop pretending that revenue isn't part of the equation. You don't give more money to a crack addict. They'll just use it to buy more crack. Government needs to show a little fiscal responsibility before the general public is going to feel anywhere near secure about giving them more money. "We're going to have to raise taxes!" "Um, how about you just don't spend so much?" "But we neeeeeeed the money." "No, you're just going to waste it." "We won't waste it. We promise!" "Ok, here's the money." "Woohoo!" <wastes it> "We're going to have to raise taxes!" |
|
| Author: | Kaffis Mark V [ Fri Nov 09, 2012 8:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
It's also worth pointing out that if there was the mandate for Obama's fiscal plans regarding debt and taxes as Obama's claiming, the Republicans would have lost the House. |
|
| Author: | Nitefox [ Fri Nov 09, 2012 8:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: And so it begins. |
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/how-man ... cond-term/ |
|
| Author: | Leshani [ Fri Nov 09, 2012 9:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
yes, Elections have consequences. I had one Job in Florida cancel yesterday, Exact wording I was told unpredictable economy, and regulations. Another job placed on hold until financial and regulatory forecasts are complete. You will be advised of project status within 10 days, please submit any outstanding charges for payment. |
|
| Author: | Corolinth [ Fri Nov 09, 2012 9:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I would like to remind everyone that out of some 200,000,000 possible voters, only 58,000,000 or so supported Obama. So no, Obama's plan did not win the backing of a goddamn thing this week. |
|
| Author: | Aizle [ Fri Nov 09, 2012 10:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Corolinth wrote: I would like to remind everyone that out of some 200,000,000 possible voters, only 58,000,000 or so supported Obama. So no, Obama's plan did not win the backing of a goddamn thing this week. This is not different than any other election for any other President. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Fri Nov 09, 2012 10:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: And so it begins. |
Yes, as a matter of fact it did. It doesn't matter how many voters didn't vote; you don't get to assume they don't support the President just because they didn't vote. Maybe they don't care, and are perfectly happy to go with whoever gets picked. Either way, you don't get to speak for them. If you don't vote, you don't count. Period. You are not a de facto vote for Coro not liking any candidates. As to the spending, I'm ok with the tax increase IF there's significant spending cuts and IF the cuts to everything else, social spending in particular, are AT LEAST as deep as the cuts to the military. Otherwise, more taxes (and cuts to military spending) ARE just like crack to a crack addict. Both parties have to tell their constituents they won't be buying votes anymore, either directly, or through feel-goodism. |
|
| Author: | Lenas [ Fri Nov 09, 2012 10:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: And so it begins. |
People that don't vote don't have an opinion worth caring about. |
|
| Author: | Midgen [ Sat Nov 10, 2012 1:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
How about a tax plan where everyone who voted for Obama gets a tax hike? |
|
| Author: | Coren [ Sat Nov 10, 2012 3:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: And so it begins. |
Lenas wrote: People that don't vote don't have an opinion worth caring about. And I would kinda like to see candidates worth voting on before I get criticized for not voting for either of of them. |
|
| Author: | Xequecal [ Sat Nov 10, 2012 3:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
IMHO, not voting is better than being one of those stupid "pet issue" voters that destroy our political process, where only one thing is important to you and you are somehow obligated to vote for the most "electable" candidate that's pro-that. This is what lets the Dems and Reps split the country so effectively and lock out all competition, because if you're (for example) the only pro-choice or pro-life candidate in a given race you're guaranteed 20% of the votes regardless of your positions on anything else. |
|
| Author: | Lenas [ Sat Nov 10, 2012 4:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: And so it begins. |
Coren wrote: And I would kinda like to see candidates worth voting on before I get criticized for not voting for either of of them. Either of them? There were many choices. |
|
| Author: | Coren [ Sat Nov 10, 2012 5:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: And so it begins. |
Yes, either of them. |
|
| Author: | RangerDave [ Sat Nov 10, 2012 7:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Leshani wrote: yes, Elections have consequences. I had one Job in Florida cancel yesterday, Exact wording I was told unpredictable economy, and regulations. Another job placed on hold until financial and regulatory forecasts are complete. You will be advised of project status within 10 days, please submit any outstanding charges for payment. Sorry to hear that, Lesh. That sucks. Big picture, though, it's worth noting that it goes both ways. I had a number of clients in the renewable energy sector slow-walking deals for 2013 until the election was done because they were concerned that a Romney administration would be bad for their business. Similarly, clients with interests in both renewables and traditional power gen have been working up contingency plans to switch back to more of a coal and gas focus if Romney had won. Point is, the money just flows to different industries depending on who sets the agenda in DC. Not always an exact 1 for 1, of course, but this was the first presidential election in which I got an inside look at how at least some of the big-money guys think, and it was amazing to me, given all the public rhetoric in both directions, how much of the private discussions were really just about where, not whether, to invest. |
|
| Author: | Hopwin [ Sat Nov 10, 2012 8:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Tax increase? Why are we talking in singulars? Incoming: Bush income tax cuts Capital gains tax Obama's FICA tax holiday Estate tax Gift tax Obamacare tax What else am I missing? |
|
| Author: | Aizle [ Sat Nov 10, 2012 11:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: And so it begins. |
Diamondeye wrote: As to the spending, I'm ok with the tax increase IF there's significant spending cuts and IF the cuts to everything else, social spending in particular, are AT LEAST as deep as the cuts to the military. Otherwise, more taxes (and cuts to military spending) ARE just like crack to a crack addict. Both parties have to tell their constituents they won't be buying votes anymore, either directly, or through feel-goodism. I'm basically in complete agreement with you except that I believe that the military can afford deeper cuts than most areas. That said, they should not be radically larger. But I find all the whining from the military about compromising our safety and readiness to not be compelling. |
|
| Author: | Lex Luthor [ Sat Nov 10, 2012 1:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: And so it begins. |
Coren wrote: Lenas wrote: People that don't vote don't have an opinion worth caring about. And I would kinda like to see candidates worth voting on before I get criticized for not voting for either of of them. Most state ballots had over 2 options. |
|
| Author: | DFK! [ Sun Nov 11, 2012 11:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: And so it begins. |
Aizle wrote: Müs wrote: How about you stop **** spending first, then we can discuss whether you need more money. How about we stop pretending that revenue isn't part of the equation. It isn't a meaningful part of the equation. Revenue has a far smaller variable range than spending does. Taxing the top 1% of earners at 99% (presuming they'd even continue to earn at that point) wouldn't put a significant fractional dent in our national debt. We need 3% REAL cuts over the next 10 years, every year, across the board, and we'll be fine. By 2022 that'd take us back to inflation adjusted Clintonian spending levels and simultaneously balance the budget, while showing our creditors we know how to actually reduce spending. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Sun Nov 11, 2012 12:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: And so it begins. |
Aizle wrote: Diamondeye wrote: As to the spending, I'm ok with the tax increase IF there's significant spending cuts and IF the cuts to everything else, social spending in particular, are AT LEAST as deep as the cuts to the military. Otherwise, more taxes (and cuts to military spending) ARE just like crack to a crack addict. Both parties have to tell their constituents they won't be buying votes anymore, either directly, or through feel-goodism. I'm basically in complete agreement with you except that I believe that the military can afford deeper cuts than most areas. That said, they should not be radically larger. But I find all the whining from the military about compromising our safety and readiness to not be compelling. The military cannot afford deeper cuts than most arews, mainly because deeper cuts in the military would be an ecuse to not cut other, politically painful areas. There is also the fact that deep cuts in the military inevitably cut combat power first, leaving less useful areas intact as essentially a fixed cost. It is irresponsible to claim the military needs cuts while at the same time using it as a combination social welfare and engineering platform, jobs program, job training program, corporate and contractor welfare program, and source of pork for idiots like Barney Frank who oppose every degense program since 1965, but still demand major defense spending intheir district or state. |
|
| Author: | Coren [ Mon Nov 12, 2012 2:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: And so it begins. |
Lex Luthor wrote: Coren wrote: Lenas wrote: People that don't vote don't have an opinion worth caring about. And I would kinda like to see candidates worth voting on before I get criticized for not voting for either of of them. Most state ballots had over 2 options. None of which were any better or even electable, so my point remains. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|