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

The GOP continues to fight to keep tax cuts for the rich in place at a cost of over $700 billion. OK, fine, I understand, the GOP fights for the rich, thats fine, but cant they also fight for the poor?

While fighting for those tax breaks for people rolling around in millions of dollars, the GOP has blocked a move that would give seniors $250 to help offset the lack of social security increase next year. Republicans contend the country cant afford the $14 billion that such a move would cost...

$700 billion cost to government to help the rich stay richer = OK

$14 billion cost to government to help seniors get by with their day to day living = BAD

socialist.

UNHWildCats wrote:The GOP continues to fight to keep tax cuts for the rich in place at a cost of over $700 billion. OK, fine, I understand, the GOP fights for the rich, thats fine, but cant they also fight for the poor?

While fighting for those tax breaks for people rolling around in millions of dollars, the GOP has blocked a move that would give seniors $250 to help offset the lack of social security increase next year. Republicans contend the country cant afford the $14 billion that such a move would cost...

$700 billion cost to government to help the rich stay richer = OK

$14 billion cost to government to help seniors get by with their day to day living = BAD

First, who says social security recipients are poor...

Second, why should social security recipients receive this extra money when others like military and civilian retirees and people on disability retirements who are covered by the same law get nothing?

Third, social security recipients are not getting the money because the economy has been flat...are you suggesting if the economy is negative, you'd support taking money away from social security recipients???

How about fighting for consistency??? Democrats can't...

The tax cuts didn't cost the government anything. It kept them from taking $700 billion from the taxpayers. It's our money not the government's!

HI54UNI wrote:The tax cuts didn't cost the government anything. It kept them from taking $700 billion from the taxpayers. It's our money not the government's!

It is amazing that some people don't get that concept.

UNHWildCats wrote:The GOP continues to fight to keep tax cuts for the rich in place at a cost of over $700 billion. OK, fine, I understand, the GOP fights for the rich, thats fine, but cant they also fight for the poor?

While fighting for those tax breaks for people rolling around in millions of dollars, the GOP has blocked a move that would give seniors $250 to help offset the lack of social security increase next year. Republicans contend the country cant afford the $14 billion that such a move would cost...

$700 billion cost to government to help the rich stay richer = OK

$14 billion cost to government to help seniors get by with their day to day living = BAD

I seem to recall a snickering Democrat controlled Congress when GWB suggested that we needed to overhaul Social Security.

This isn't a problem that has just come out of the blue, and if you don't think that Democrats are equally (and in many cases more) to blame for this then you need to take off the tinfoil hat and join society like the rest of us.

UNHWildCats wrote:The GOP continues to fight to keep tax cuts for the rich in place at a cost of over $700 billion. OK, fine, I understand, the GOP fights for the rich, thats fine, but cant they also fight for the poor?

While fighting for those tax breaks for people rolling around in millions of dollars, the GOP has blocked a move that would give seniors $250 to help offset the lack of social security increase next year. Republicans contend the country cant afford the $14 billion that such a move would cost...

$700 billion cost to government to help the rich stay richer = OK

$14 billion cost to government to help seniors get by with their day to day living = BAD

Who the cr@p you defining as "rich?"

I guess you've never heard of "trickle-down economics." Keep business taxes low and we all benefit.

BlueHen86 wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:The tax cuts didn't cost the government anything. It kept them from taking $700 billion from the taxpayers. It's our money not the government's!

It is amazing that some people don't get that concept.

It is a fundamental problem among those that want to be taken care of instead of making their own way.

BlueHen86 wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:The tax cuts didn't cost the government anything. It kept them from taking $700 billion from the taxpayers. It's our money not the government's!

It is amazing that some people don't get that concept.

Isn't it also our debt?

CID1990 wrote:

UNHWildCats wrote:The GOP continues to fight to keep tax cuts for the rich in place at a cost of over $700 billion. OK, fine, I understand, the GOP fights for the rich, thats fine, but cant they also fight for the poor?

While fighting for those tax breaks for people rolling around in millions of dollars, the GOP has blocked a move that would give seniors $250 to help offset the lack of social security increase next year. Republicans contend the country cant afford the $14 billion that such a move would cost...

$700 billion cost to government to help the rich stay richer = OK

$14 billion cost to government to help seniors get by with their day to day living = BAD

I seem to recall a snickering Democrat controlled Congress when GWB suggested that we needed to overhaul Social Security.

This isn't a problem that has just come out of the blue, and if you don't think that Democrats are equally (and in many cases more) to blame for this then you need to take off the tinfoil hat and join society like the rest of us.

Yep. We overhauled SS once under Reagan and both parties spent the proceeds. Without that, SS is solvent for generations.

That somehow has to be paid for, but you ain't gonna do it by reducing revenues. I also seem to remember GWB and Republicans figuring we could fight two wars and create Homeland Security for free.

HI54UNI wrote:The tax cuts didn't cost the government anything. It kept them from taking $700 billion from the taxpayers. It's our money not the government's!

Thank you! That's the part the media doesn't tell everybody - I'm sick of the CNN folks talking about the "cost" being similar in scope to the stimulus. It's not like the money was already there and they graciously returned it to us in the form of "cash for clunkers", TARP, or "stimulus" - the money never left our pockets. Unless these idiots established their '11 budget with the expectation of the Bush cuts expiring (which may have happened ) there was no direct cost to the Treasury.

The Conks will be made out to be the bad guys in this whole mess when the Dems decided to wait out all of this until post November. They've had 4 yrs to push toward rescinding the Bush era tax cuts, but have done nothing about it.

ASUG8 wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:The tax cuts didn't cost the government anything. It kept them from taking $700 billion from the taxpayers. It's our money not the government's!

Thank you! That's the part the media doesn't tell everybody - I'm sick of the CNN folks talking about the "cost" being similar in scope to the stimulus. It's not like the money was already there and they graciously returned it to us in the form of "cash for clunkers", TARP, or "stimulus" - the money never left our pockets. Unless these idiots established their '11 budget with the expectation of the Bush cuts expiring (which may have happened ) there was no direct cost to the Treasury.

The Conks will be made out to be the bad guys in this whole mess when the Dems decided to wait out all of this until post November. They've had 4 yrs to push toward rescinding the Bush era tax cuts, but have done nothing about it.

I would guarantee that they did exatly that, 8.

Yet another famous Travis throw it at the wall and see if it sticks thread.

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
It is amazing that some people don't get that concept.

It is a fundamental problem among those that want to be taken care of instead of making their own way.

Thanks Native.

UNHWildCats wrote:The GOP continues to fight to keep tax cuts for the rich in place at a cost of over $700 billion. OK, fine, I understand, the GOP fights for the rich, thats fine, but cant they also fight for the poor?

While fighting for those tax breaks for people rolling around in millions of dollars, the GOP has blocked a move that would give seniors $250 to help offset the lack of social security increase next year. Republicans contend the country cant afford the $14 billion that such a move would cost...

$700 billion cost to government to help the rich stay richer = OK

$14 billion cost to government to help seniors get by with their day to day living = BAD

Any social security payments come out of the social security trust fund. And giving the those seniors an extra 14 billion out of the social security trust fund would just mean that social security would run out even sooner than the current 2037 projection and bennies would be cut even sooner.

Social security increases are based on an the prior years inflation from a formula that the Social Security admin has been using since I believe the start of social security that has increased historically at a slightly faster rate than the regular CPI. A couple of years ago they got a 5.5% increase when the regular CPI from the prior year was only a couple %. Well, this past year there has been very little to no inflation, and social security formula shows a zero % increase. Actually, the formula they used showed a slight decrease, but they never cut bennies. This explains it:
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/COLA/latestCOLA.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BlueHen86 wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:The tax cuts didn't cost the government anything. It kept them from taking $700 billion from the taxpayers. It's our money not the government's!

It is amazing that some people don't get that concept.

Ditto. What did cost the govt 56 billion (low ball estimate) more is extending unemployment for 13 more months from the current 99 weeks. So that means you can stay on unemployment for what, about 3 years/155 weeks

Lets see, the donks think confiscating more $ from investors, entrepreneurs, and small businesses, and paying people not to work for longer will stimulate the economy

SuperHornet wrote:

UNHWildCats wrote:The GOP continues to fight to keep tax cuts for the rich in place at a cost of over $700 billion. OK, fine, I understand, the GOP fights for the rich, thats fine, but cant they also fight for the poor?

While fighting for those tax breaks for people rolling around in millions of dollars, the GOP has blocked a move that would give seniors $250 to help offset the lack of social security increase next year. Republicans contend the country cant afford the $14 billion that such a move would cost...

$700 billion cost to government to help the rich stay richer = OK

$14 billion cost to government to help seniors get by with their day to day living = BAD

Who the cr@p you defining as "rich?"

I guess you've never heard of "trickle-down economics." Keep business taxes low and we all benefit.

Anyone or any business making over 200k is rich to him and all the rest of the left wing donks.

kalm wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
It is amazing that some people don't get that concept.

Isn't it also our debt?

Yes, it is. And when they actually get serious about curtailing spending and reducing the debt, I'll be fully onboard with a higher tax rate. Until such time, I'll keep my hard-earned money, thank you very little.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Isn't it also our debt?

Yes, it is. And when they actually get serious about curtailing spending and reducing the debt, I'll be fully onboard with a higher tax rate. Until such time, I'll keep my hard-earned money, thank you very little.

Exactly, let's see some spending cuts first.

kalm wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
It is amazing that some people don't get that concept.

Isn't it also our debt?

I don't think that matters here. Are you suggesting that as long as the government is in debt all the money we earn is really the government's and we only keep what they let us? If I have a mortgage or a car loan does my money belong to the bank or to GM?

The money that I earn is mine. I pay my taxes and I understand that my tax rate is subject to change, but it still comes down to the government taking money from me. If I get a tax break it means that I get to keep more of what is mine, not that I got money from the government.

BlueHen86 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Isn't it also our debt?

I don't think that matters here. Are you suggesting that as long as the government is in debt all the money we earn is really the government's and we only keep what they let us? If I have a mortgage or a car loan does my money belong to the bank or to GM?

The money that I earn is mine. I pay my taxes and I understand that my tax rate is subject to change, but it still comes down to the government taking money from me. If I get a tax break it means that I get to keep more of what is mine, not that I got money from the government.

An argument could be made that some portion of what you earn, and what you spend your money on, is based on infrastructure paid for by the government and by extension by all of us. Not "all the money", but at least some. And it's quantifying "some" that's the problem...

Rob Iola wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
I don't think that matters here. Are you suggesting that as long as the government is in debt all the money we earn is really the government's and we only keep what they let us? If I have a mortgage or a car loan does my money belong to the bank or to GM?

The money that I earn is mine. I pay my taxes and I understand that my tax rate is subject to change, but it still comes down to the government taking money from me. If I get a tax break it means that I get to keep more of what is mine, not that I got money from the government.

An argument could be made that some portion of what you earn, and what you spend your money on, is based on infrastructure paid for by the government and by extension by all of us. Not "all the money", but at least some. And it's quantifying "some" that's the problem...

Understood, and agreed. I owe money, the government tells me what I owe and I pay it - with my money. It's a subtle but important distinction.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Isn't it also our debt?

Yes, it is. And when they actually get serious about curtailing spending and reducing the debt, I'll be fully onboard with a higher tax rate. Until such time, I'll keep my hard-earned money, thank you very little.

How about the cost of occupying two countries half way around the world and the cost of maintaining 700 odd military bases around the globe? Is that stuff on the table or can cuts only be made in programs that benefit ordinary Americans? Ordinary being defined as the 50% of Americans that control less wealth than the top 1%.

houndawg wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Yes, it is. And when they actually get serious about curtailing spending and reducing the debt, I'll be fully onboard with a higher tax rate. Until such time, I'll keep my hard-earned money, thank you very little.

How about the cost of occupying two countries half way around the world and the cost of maintaining 700 odd military bases around the globe? Is that stuff on the table or can cuts only be made in programs that benefit ordinary Americans? Ordinary being defined as the 90% of Americans that control less wealth than the top 1%.

Hounder AZ has said many times that Military cuts should be made, troops shouldn't be in those wars and that cuts should be on all areas of the budget.

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:

houndawg wrote:

How about the cost of occupying two countries half way around the world and the cost of maintaining 700 odd military bases around the globe? Is that stuff on the table or can cuts only be made in programs that benefit ordinary Americans? Ordinary being defined as the 90% of Americans that control less wealth than the top 1%.

Hounder AZ has said many times that Military cuts should be made, troops shouldn't be in those wars and that cuts should be on all areas of the budget.

'Dawg has a selective memory, U.