Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

You earn some money...the government decides to tax you a certain percentage...they take your money...

So far, I'm OK with this...

The government , for what ever reason, decides to lower the tax percentage...you get to keep more of your money...

But in the eyes of Nancy Pelosi, the government is giving away money...

Speaking today about the tax debate in Congress, the outgoing speaker made the following observation...

"Giving $700 billion to the wealthiest people in America ... does not create jobs," said Pelosi, D-California.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/02/ ... tml?hpt=T2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thank goodness her reign is over soon...

And that is perhaps my biggest issue with the donk crowd. This concept that they are somehow "entitled" to the money, and if through their benevolence they decide to give it back, they're somehow doing people a favor.

O&A were talking about this statement today and they pointed out this P&T clip.

[youtube][/youtube]

How many net jobs have the bush tax cuts created?

kalm wrote:How many net jobs have the bush tax cuts created?

How many net jobs did the stimulus create (plus or minus 8-10 million)?

ASUG8 wrote:

kalm wrote:How many net jobs have the bush tax cuts created?

How many net jobs did the stimulus create (plus or minus 8-10 million)?

According to the CBO it created as many as 3.3 million. But that's beside the point. Neither rich people or the government create long term, sustainable job growth. Demand does.

I looked at the toll of the vote and I thought to myself, "How many of the democrats who were just voted out of office just gave a big 'fuck you' to the voters who fired them?"

Of course this will die in the senate but the bigger picture is this: Because of the house democrats ignoring the absolute irrefutable evidence that lower marginal rates increase revenue and productive behavior in the private sector, everybody's taxes will go up come January 1. For the family earning $80k w/4 dependents that will mean an extra $500+/- a month that you don't have.

This is absolutely nothing more than class warfare and another blowjob from Pelosi and Obama to the unions. They are playing politics with OUR money folks, trying to pit the high earners against everybody else.

Pitiful...

To add to my previous post: It would seem like Princess Pelosi and her defeated minions should pay more attention to the economic numbers like the weak monthly employment report this morning than to the politics of divisiveness. They are hurting all of us with this behavior.

Good riddance and Obama can't get out of office fast enough either. Unfortunately for all of us he has two more years to inflict further damage.

kalm wrote:According to the CBO it created as many as 3.3 million. But that's beside the point. Neither rich people or the government create long term, sustainable job growth. Demand does.

So having more people keep more of their money might be a good thing.

blueballs wrote: For the family earning $80k w/4 dependents that will mean an extra $500+/- a month that you don't have..

Not to mention small businesses struggling to stay above water without layoffs are going to be paying more in taxes.

It is the Conks that don't get it. Tax Cuts for the wealthy HURT the country. It doesn't create any jobs, and it ties money up, and creates a dangerous wealth imbalance in this country.

89Hen wrote:

kalm wrote:According to the CBO it created as many as 3.3 million. But that's beside the point. Neither rich people or the government create long term, sustainable job growth. Demand does.

So having more people keep more of their money might be a good thing.

If it's the middle class and small businesses.

AZGrizFan wrote:And that is perhaps my biggest issue with the donk crowd. This concept that they are somehow "entitled" to the money, and if through their benevolence they decide to give it back, they're somehow doing people a favor.

You were saying...

dbackjon wrote:It is the Conks that don't get it. Tax Cuts for the wealthy HURT the country. It doesn't create any jobs, and it ties money up, and creates a dangerous wealth imbalance in this country.

Exactly who's money is it Jon?

kalm wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
How many net jobs did the stimulus create (plus or minus 8-10 million)?

According to the CBO it created as many as 3.3 million. But that's beside the point. Neither rich people or the government create long term, sustainable job growth. Demand does.

•Increased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million

Not exactly an exact science, but that's beside the point.
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=1326" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To your point, aside from basic necessities, demand is created when there's consumer confidence about their jobs and financial well being. Rescinding the tax cuts at this point in time is tantamount to putting your foot on the throat of a very sluggish recovery. Revisit the issue in a year or two if necessary.

blueballs wrote: Because of the house democrats ignoring the absolute irrefutable evidence that lower marginal rates increase revenue and productive behavior in the private sector, everybody's taxes will go up come January 1.

It's very refutable. What's irrefutable is that when the top marginal rates were cut in the '20's, the 80's, and the 2000's, a bubble followed. Even Reagan understood this and had to increase taxes to balance the loss in revenue from his tax cuts. Bush I also understood.

Chicago school and supply side = epic fail.

89Hen wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:And that is perhaps my biggest issue with the donk crowd. This concept that they are somehow "entitled" to the money, and if through their benevolence they decide to give it back, they're somehow doing people a favor.

You were saying...

dbackjon wrote:It is the Conks that don't get it. Tax Cuts for the wealthy HURT the country. It doesn't create any jobs, and it ties money up, and creates a dangerous wealth imbalance in this country.

Exactly who's money is it Jon?

Citizens need to pay for the Government that allows them to accumulate the wealth in the first place.

dbackjon wrote:

89Hen wrote: You were saying...

Exactly who's money is it Jon?

Citizens need to pay for a fiscally responsible Government that allows them to accumulate the wealth in the first place.

FIFY

dbackjon wrote:Citizens need to pay for the Government that allows them to accumulate the wealth in the first place.

Bullshit. Exactly how does the government allow anyone to accumulate wealth? It's actually quite the opposite... the government does everything in their power to keep you from accumulating wealth. Your statement only proves libs don't get it.

89Hen wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Citizens need to pay for the Government that allows them to accumulate the wealth in the first place.

Bullshit. Exactly how does the government allow anyone to accumulate wealth? It's actually quite the opposite... the government does everything in their power to keep you from accumulating wealth. Your statement only proves libs don't get it.

Tell that to Rand Paul and all his medicare patient created wealth.

RR act
Homestead Act
Public University Research
Natural resource extraction of public lands
Government construction contracts
Defense contracts

There's a whole bunch of smart wealthy people who have used government to accumulate wealth.

kalm wrote:

89Hen wrote: Bullshit. Exactly how does the government allow anyone to accumulate wealth? It's actually quite the opposite... the government does everything in their power to keep you from accumulating wealth. Your statement only proves libs don't get it.

Tell that to Rand Paul and all his medicare patient created wealth.

RR act
Homestead Act
Public University Research
Natural resource extraction of public lands
Government construction contracts
Defense contracts

There's a whole bunch of smart wealthy people who have used government to accumulate wealth.

.....and a ton of able bodied folks who found the loopholes in government benevolence to milk the system with entitlements, but that's OK.

dbackjon wrote:It is the Conks that don't get it. Tax Cuts for the wealthy HURT the country. It doesn't create any jobs, and it ties money up, and creates a dangerous wealth imbalance in this country.

Am I correct in your thinking that the Republicans have (and will again) mismanaged the country? If so, you pose they need to rake in more of the people's money so that they'll have more to mismanage? I just want to make sure I'm clear.

In your mind, because these people are "wealthy" they should give up a substantial amount of income that they EARNED, so that ineffective politicians (that you disagree with) will have more money available to inflict the evil you believe they produce?
Sound counterintuitive? I think so.

You say the tax cuts haven't worked, ok I'm listening. So you prefer to raise taxes back to where they were when Clinton was in office as that will help the country (perhaps even higher, not sure). I'm assuming your position is that by having this money the government can spend this money to help people, or is it to balance the budget? I believe you supported the Stimulus package, correct? Assuming this, how much has it helped the country? It's probably impossible to answer, but I'd suggest neither the tax cuts or the stimulus have achieved their stated goals because of mismanagement from Republicans and Democrats (though I think it's always better for the people to keep more of the money they earned) So, the real question is: Does the government deserve more money when they can't manage the money they bring in now?

ASUG8 wrote:

kalm wrote:


Tell that to Rand Paul and all his medicare patient created wealth.

RR act
Homestead Act
Public University Research
Natural resource extraction of public lands
Government construction contracts
Defense contracts

There's a whole bunch of smart wealthy people who have used government to accumulate wealth.

.....and a ton of able bodied folks who found the loopholes in government benevolence to milk the system with entitlements, but that's OK.

Never said that.

dbackjon wrote:

89Hen wrote: You were saying...

Exactly who's money is it Jon?

Citizens need to pay for the Government that allows them to accumulate the wealth in the first place.

I thought this is a government of, for, and by the people. Not a people of, for, and by the government. Apparently, you believe the latter.

kalm wrote:How many net jobs have the bush tax cuts created?

Loser post of the day!!!

travelinman67 wrote:

kalm wrote:How many net jobs have the bush tax cuts created?

Loser post of the day!!!