[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Bout time.
I hope people realize that this is the cost of the stimulus and bailouts. It wasn’t free money.[/quote]
No WAI dood, the Government will just ummm like print more money and like we can all just use that money to pay for this extra stuff. No worries dood. It’s going to be Totally Tubular Dood!
V
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
[quote]JoeGood wrote:
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
[quote]JoeGood wrote:
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
[quote]JoeGood wrote:
They should ditch the child tax credit with the mortgage interest deduction too. [/quote]
Got kids? Own a house GoodJoe???
I, as well as 80% of homeowners will be royally FUCKED if they do this, but all of them will be tarred, feathered and out of commission if they even think about it. [/quote]
kids- no, house-yes.
Its funny how many conservatives want the gov. to “social engineer” when it benefits them. [/quote]
“Social Eng” what?..[/quote]
The act of encouraging or discouraging an event or act that is not part of government’s purview. Wether or not I purchase a home or if I take out a mortgae to pay for it should neither increase or decrease the proportion of the expenses of the governemnt I should bear. [/quote]
Then you must be a proponent for a flat tax then.
[/quote]
Yep, but if it takes baby steps to get there then I’ll start by supporting the removal portions of the tax code where the government punishes or rewards people for lifestyle choices.
I should note I’d PREFER a comsumption tax rather than an income tax.
[quote]JoeGood wrote:
Yep, but if it takes baby steps to get there then I’ll start by supporting the removal portions of the tax code where the government punishes or rewards people for lifestyle choices.
I should note I’d PERFER a comsumption tax rather than an income tax.[/quote]
I agree with you there, but a flat tax would allow them to cut programs while also gaining revenue for 100% of people in the US. They gain on both fronts…BUT
Why are they not talking about cutting welfare and aid to illegal immigrants?
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
[quote]JoeGood wrote:
Yep, but if it takes baby steps to get there then I’ll start by supporting the removal portions of the tax code where the government punishes or rewards people for lifestyle choices.
I should note I’d PERFER a comsumption tax rather than an income tax.[/quote]
I agree with you there, but a flat tax would allow them to cut programs while also gaining revenue for 100% of people in the US. They gain on both fronts…BUT
Why are they not talking about cutting welfare and aid to illegal immigrants?
[/quote]
Because you’d piss off 75% of the constituency? <couldn’t resist>
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
[quote]JoeGood wrote:
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
[quote]JoeGood wrote:
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
[quote]JoeGood wrote:
They should ditch the child tax credit with the mortgage interest deduction too. [/quote]
Got kids? Own a house GoodJoe???
I, as well as 80% of homeowners will be royally FUCKED if they do this, but all of them will be tarred, feathered and out of commission if they even think about it. [/quote]
kids- no, house-yes.
Its funny how many conservatives want the gov. to “social engineer” when it benefits them. [/quote]
“Social Eng” what?..[/quote]
The act of encouraging or discouraging an event or act that is not part of government’s purview. Wether or not I purchase a home or if I take out a mortgae to pay for it should neither increase or decrease the proportion of the expenses of the governemnt I should bear. [/quote]
Then you must be a proponent for a flat tax then.
[/quote]
Some sort of flat tax would be better than all sorts of tax deductions. Social engineering sounds good but it invariably runs into trouble.
If government gets dependent on a tobacco tax, what should they do when people quit smoking?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Nothing will be done based on this commission. NOTHING. This was for pure show while Obamawitz travels the world. This type of thing has been done before. The “Grace Commission” was launched by Ronald Reagan during his presidency in 1982. That particular task force produced 2,236 recommendations. There would have been a savings of $341 billion dollars if everything had been done.
They had a big splash on all the networks and everyone got all excited thinking that now something was going to get done. Guess what? Nothing happened, not one of their recommendations was put into action. I expect no more from this latest nonsense.
We already have a body that is supposed to look after the purse strings it’s called Congress. And they won’t even look at this latest stuff as they know, just like Obama that it’s all for show. When the rubber hits the road they will do what they do best and that’s spend. Sure some of the new republicans will fight for this stuff but it won’t be nearly enough to matter.
Now everyone just keep moving, go on, go about your business there’s nothing to see here, move along. There’s nothing positive coming in the near future, other than gridlock. [/quote]
You guys know my cynicism when it comes to our Government…so Zeb is most likely correct.
However…what do you think the public reaction will be to total inaction on the part of the “New” Congress?
My guess is that will all depend on the segment of the population affected by the particular change or changes. Hit people in their pocket and you see how committed they are to their “principals”.
Mufasa
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
[quote]JoeGood wrote:
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
[quote]JoeGood wrote:
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
[quote]JoeGood wrote:
They should ditch the child tax credit with the mortgage interest deduction too. [/quote]
Got kids? Own a house GoodJoe???
I, as well as 80% of homeowners will be royally FUCKED if they do this, but all of them will be tarred, feathered and out of commission if they even think about it. [/quote]
kids- no, house-yes.
Its funny how many conservatives want the gov. to “social engineer” when it benefits them. [/quote]
“Social Eng” what?..[/quote]
The act of encouraging or discouraging an event or act that is not part of government’s purview. Wether or not I purchase a home or if I take out a mortgae to pay for it should neither increase or decrease the proportion of the expenses of the governemnt I should bear. [/quote]
Then you must be a proponent for a flat tax then.
[/quote]
Some sort of flat tax would be better than all sorts of tax deductions. Social engineering sounds good but it invariably runs into trouble.
If government gets dependent on a tobacco tax, what should they do when people quit smoking? [/quote]
What does a “flat” tax really mean? “Income” for tax purposes is traditionally thought of as “profits,” which is gross revenue minus allowable expenses. Even with a so-called flat tax you have to agree and define what deductions are allowable, in other words, what is a legitimate expense, unless you re-defined the meaning of “income.” Having to define and agree on allowable deductions will always be a problem in any tax system based on income or profit. Do the flat-tax proposals floating around redefine income or base the tax on gross income and not profits? I am just curious.
All of them are good cuts, none of them will happen.
You are already seeing people getting up in arms about the mortgage credit, won’t be long till people get pissed off about Social security, then the Hawks will come in and claim that the debt commison wants people to die at terrorists hands so the defence budget wont get cut.
All in all this was a nice little show they put on but nothing is going to change because everyone suffers from NIMBY.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Nothing will be done based on this commission. NOTHING. This was for pure show while Obamawitz travels the world. This type of thing has been done before. The “Grace Commission” was launched by Ronald Reagan during his presidency in 1982. That particular task force produced 2,236 recommendations. There would have been a savings of $341 billion dollars if everything had been done.
They had a big splash on all the networks and everyone got all excited thinking that now something was going to get done. Guess what? Nothing happened, not one of their recommendations was put into action. I expect no more from this latest nonsense.
We already have a body that is supposed to look after the purse strings it’s called Congress. And they won’t even look at this latest stuff as they know, just like Obama that it’s all for show. When the rubber hits the road they will do what they do best and that’s spend. Sure some of the new republicans will fight for this stuff but it won’t be nearly enough to matter.
Now everyone just keep moving, go on, go about your business there’s nothing to see here, move along. There’s nothing positive coming in the near future, other than gridlock. [/quote]
You guys know my cynicism when it comes to our Government…so Zeb is most likely correct.
However…what do you think the public reaction will be to total inaction on the part of the “New” Congress?
My guess is that will all depend on the segment of the population affected by the particular change or changes. Hit people in their pocket and you see how committed they are to their “principals”.
Mufasa[/quote]
It’s all politics at this point, wait, what am I saying? It’s always about politics. Nothing, or very little will get done between now and the Presidential election day. If the republicans can sell “we tried, but Obama would go for it”, they win. If Obama (and the democrats) can effectively dodge that and say “you elected a republican congress and they did nothing put me back in” then he wins.
Either way the voters are used to these types of reports and nothing being done after they’ve been aired.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Nothing will be done based on this commission. NOTHING. This was for pure show while Obamawitz travels the world. This type of thing has been done before. The “Grace Commission” was launched by Ronald Reagan during his presidency in 1982. That particular task force produced 2,236 recommendations. There would have been a savings of $341 billion dollars if everything had been done.
They had a big splash on all the networks and everyone got all excited thinking that now something was going to get done. Guess what? Nothing happened, not one of their recommendations was put into action. I expect no more from this latest nonsense.
We already have a body that is supposed to look after the purse strings it’s called Congress. And they won’t even look at this latest stuff as they know, just like Obama that it’s all for show. When the rubber hits the road they will do what they do best and that’s spend. Sure some of the new republicans will fight for this stuff but it won’t be nearly enough to matter.
Now everyone just keep moving, go on, go about your business there’s nothing to see here, move along. There’s nothing positive coming in the near future, other than gridlock. [/quote]
You guys know my cynicism when it comes to our Government…so Zeb is most likely correct.
However…what do you think the public reaction will be to total inaction on the part of the “New” Congress?
My guess is that will all depend on the segment of the population affected by the particular change or changes. Hit people in their pocket and you see how committed they are to their “principals”.
Mufasa[/quote]
It’s all politics at this point, wait, what am I saying? It’s always about politics. Nothing, or very little will get done between now and the Presidential election day. If the republicans can sell “we tried, but Obama would go for it”, they win. If Obama (and the democrats) can effectively dodge that and say “you elected a republican congress and they did nothing put me back in” then he wins.
Either way the voters are used to these types of reports and nothing being done after they’ve been aired.
[/quote]
This is so true. After the elections on Nov. 2 the GOP was all about working with the Dems but by Sunday morning they were drawing lines in the sand. No compromise, going to investigate the hell out of the last two years, nothing’s going to get done over the next two. It’s going to be a case of “we said/they said” and no one ever wins those battles. It does almost make it worthless to vote.
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Nothing will be done based on this commission. NOTHING. This was for pure show while Obamawitz travels the world. This type of thing has been done before. The “Grace Commission” was launched by Ronald Reagan during his presidency in 1982. That particular task force produced 2,236 recommendations. There would have been a savings of $341 billion dollars if everything had been done.
They had a big splash on all the networks and everyone got all excited thinking that now something was going to get done. Guess what? Nothing happened, not one of their recommendations was put into action. I expect no more from this latest nonsense.
We already have a body that is supposed to look after the purse strings it’s called Congress. And they won’t even look at this latest stuff as they know, just like Obama that it’s all for show. When the rubber hits the road they will do what they do best and that’s spend. Sure some of the new republicans will fight for this stuff but it won’t be nearly enough to matter.
Now everyone just keep moving, go on, go about your business there’s nothing to see here, move along. There’s nothing positive coming in the near future, other than gridlock. [/quote]
You guys know my cynicism when it comes to our Government…so Zeb is most likely correct.
However…what do you think the public reaction will be to total inaction on the part of the “New” Congress?
My guess is that will all depend on the segment of the population affected by the particular change or changes. Hit people in their pocket and you see how committed they are to their “principals”.
Mufasa[/quote]
It’s all politics at this point, wait, what am I saying? It’s always about politics. Nothing, or very little will get done between now and the Presidential election day. If the republicans can sell “we tried, but Obama would go for it”, they win. If Obama (and the democrats) can effectively dodge that and say “you elected a republican congress and they did nothing put me back in” then he wins.
Either way the voters are used to these types of reports and nothing being done after they’ve been aired.
[/quote]
This is so true. After the elections on Nov. 2 the GOP was all about working with the Dems but by Sunday morning they were drawing lines in the sand. No compromise, going to investigate the hell out of the last two years, nothing’s going to get done over the next two. It’s going to be a case of “we said/they said” and no one ever wins those battles. It does almost make it worthless to vote.[/quote]
I’m sorry if that’s what you derived from my post, as I do not agree. By doing nothing over the next two years something very important does get done. Obama cannot raise our taxes or allow the Bush tax cuts to expire without looking bad. Also, the possibility of removing funding for certain parts of national health care is a possibility as well. Then there is cap and trade, it is dead in the water because of a republican congress. So, while nothing appears to be getting done the important thing to remember is that none of Obama’s dangerous ideas are getting accomplished. I’m very happy with that. Until we can get a really strong conservative as President I’m willing to wait for positive change.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Nothing will be done based on this commission. NOTHING. This was for pure show while Obamawitz travels the world. This type of thing has been done before. The “Grace Commission” was launched by Ronald Reagan during his presidency in 1982. That particular task force produced 2,236 recommendations. There would have been a savings of $341 billion dollars if everything had been done.
They had a big splash on all the networks and everyone got all excited thinking that now something was going to get done. Guess what? Nothing happened, not one of their recommendations was put into action. I expect no more from this latest nonsense.
We already have a body that is supposed to look after the purse strings it’s called Congress. And they won’t even look at this latest stuff as they know, just like Obama that it’s all for show. When the rubber hits the road they will do what they do best and that’s spend. Sure some of the new republicans will fight for this stuff but it won’t be nearly enough to matter.
Now everyone just keep moving, go on, go about your business there’s nothing to see here, move along. There’s nothing positive coming in the near future, other than gridlock. [/quote]
You guys know my cynicism when it comes to our Government…so Zeb is most likely correct.
However…what do you think the public reaction will be to total inaction on the part of the “New” Congress?
My guess is that will all depend on the segment of the population affected by the particular change or changes. Hit people in their pocket and you see how committed they are to their “principals”.
Mufasa[/quote]
It’s all politics at this point, wait, what am I saying? It’s always about politics. Nothing, or very little will get done between now and the Presidential election day. If the republicans can sell “we tried, but Obama would go for it”, they win. If Obama (and the democrats) can effectively dodge that and say “you elected a republican congress and they did nothing put me back in” then he wins.
Either way the voters are used to these types of reports and nothing being done after they’ve been aired.
[/quote]
This is so true. After the elections on Nov. 2 the GOP was all about working with the Dems but by Sunday morning they were drawing lines in the sand. No compromise, going to investigate the hell out of the last two years, nothing’s going to get done over the next two. It’s going to be a case of “we said/they said” and no one ever wins those battles. It does almost make it worthless to vote.[/quote]
I’m sorry if that’s what you derived from my post, as I do not agree. By doing nothing over the next two years something very important does get done. Obama cannot raise our taxes or allow the Bush tax cuts to expire without looking bad. Also, the possibility of removing funding for certain parts of national health care is a possibility as well. Then there is cap and trade, it is dead in the water because of a republican congress. So, while nothing appears to be getting done the important thing to remember is that none of Obama’s dangerous ideas are getting accomplished. I’m very happy with that. Until we can get a really strong conservative as President I’m willing to wait for positive change.
[/quote]
Oh yes, put that way, we definitely disagree. 
The thing to remember is that the people want something to get done, something helpful. If the GOP and Dems can agree on one single line item in a bill, pass it! Work on the other stuff later. That’s what is so frustrating to me. Both sides want all or nothing and the stuff they actually do agree on doesn’t get done. I think the American people would appreciate that, don’t you?
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Nothing will be done based on this commission. NOTHING. This was for pure show while Obamawitz travels the world. This type of thing has been done before. The “Grace Commission” was launched by Ronald Reagan during his presidency in 1982. That particular task force produced 2,236 recommendations. There would have been a savings of $341 billion dollars if everything had been done.
They had a big splash on all the networks and everyone got all excited thinking that now something was going to get done. Guess what? Nothing happened, not one of their recommendations was put into action. I expect no more from this latest nonsense.
We already have a body that is supposed to look after the purse strings it’s called Congress. And they won’t even look at this latest stuff as they know, just like Obama that it’s all for show. When the rubber hits the road they will do what they do best and that’s spend. Sure some of the new republicans will fight for this stuff but it won’t be nearly enough to matter.
Now everyone just keep moving, go on, go about your business there’s nothing to see here, move along. There’s nothing positive coming in the near future, other than gridlock. [/quote]
You guys know my cynicism when it comes to our Government…so Zeb is most likely correct.
However…what do you think the public reaction will be to total inaction on the part of the “New” Congress?
My guess is that will all depend on the segment of the population affected by the particular change or changes. Hit people in their pocket and you see how committed they are to their “principals”.
Mufasa[/quote]
It’s all politics at this point, wait, what am I saying? It’s always about politics. Nothing, or very little will get done between now and the Presidential election day. If the republicans can sell “we tried, but Obama would go for it”, they win. If Obama (and the democrats) can effectively dodge that and say “you elected a republican congress and they did nothing put me back in” then he wins.
Either way the voters are used to these types of reports and nothing being done after they’ve been aired.
[/quote]
This is so true. After the elections on Nov. 2 the GOP was all about working with the Dems but by Sunday morning they were drawing lines in the sand. No compromise, going to investigate the hell out of the last two years, nothing’s going to get done over the next two. It’s going to be a case of “we said/they said” and no one ever wins those battles. It does almost make it worthless to vote.[/quote]
I’m sorry if that’s what you derived from my post, as I do not agree. By doing nothing over the next two years something very important does get done. Obama cannot raise our taxes or allow the Bush tax cuts to expire without looking bad. Also, the possibility of removing funding for certain parts of national health care is a possibility as well. Then there is cap and trade, it is dead in the water because of a republican congress. So, while nothing appears to be getting done the important thing to remember is that none of Obama’s dangerous ideas are getting accomplished. I’m very happy with that. Until we can get a really strong conservative as President I’m willing to wait for positive change.
[/quote]
Oh yes, put that way, we definitely disagree. The thing to remember is that the people want something to get done, something helpful. If the GOP and Dems can agree on one single line item in a bill, pass it! Work on the other stuff later. That’s what is so frustrating to me. Both sides want all or nothing and the stuff they actually do agree on doesn’t get done. I think the American people would appreciate that, don’t you?[/quote]
We do disagree. Your logic sort of reminds me of all the people who voted for Obama because he ran on “change”. The mainstream liberal media never asked “what sort of change” but they knew. Passing a bill for the sake of getting something done isn’t what I want. Besides if you look at congress most of the democrats who are left are pretty liberal. The ones who were up for reelection were the more moderate ones. So we have a house divided, literally. I don’t see much getting done, and as I said, I’m glad.
Hmm…I’d much rather see gov’t get some good stuff done than argue about minutiae and get nothing done. I’m not talking about passing a bill just to pass a bill, but to get the stuff we agree on done, rather than nothing getting done.
Whenever gov’t gets anything done, they fuck it up, or screw people over.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
[quote]JoeGood wrote:
Yep, but if it takes baby steps to get there then I’ll start by supporting the removal portions of the tax code where the government punishes or rewards people for lifestyle choices.
I should note I’d PERFER a comsumption tax rather than an income tax.[/quote]
I agree with you there, but a flat tax would allow them to cut programs while also gaining revenue for 100% of people in the US. They gain on both fronts…BUT
Why are they not talking about cutting welfare and aid to illegal immigrants?
[/quote]
A dumb question from an Australian, how do illegal immigrants get welfare in the first place? Forged ID?
I’m interested because it sounds like an insane idea to give benefits to those who will never pay tax into the system, but maybe i’m missing something obvious
[quote]Edward wrote:
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
[quote]JoeGood wrote:
Yep, but if it takes baby steps to get there then I’ll start by supporting the removal portions of the tax code where the government punishes or rewards people for lifestyle choices.
I should note I’d PERFER a comsumption tax rather than an income tax.[/quote]
I agree with you there, but a flat tax would allow them to cut programs while also gaining revenue for 100% of people in the US. They gain on both fronts…BUT
Why are they not talking about cutting welfare and aid to illegal immigrants?
[/quote]
A dumb question from an Australian, how do illegal immigrants get welfare in the first place?
[/quote]
Often through family members who are eligible for welfare. In most states ID is needed, but you can go to the DMV and apply for one, don’t have to show any papers.
To add to the thread, somewhat OT: whenever an increasing amount of people demand more benefits, such as welfare and unemployment bennies, there will be more demands from the government as far as economical resources - draining the private sector. If the private sector funds are dwindling because consumers are buying less goods - unreasonable demands from the government must be ignored. Tea Party anyone?
American political thought is built on limited government, if you compare it to the E.U.
What will become of America?
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
Hmm…I’d much rather see gov’t get some good stuff done than argue about minutiae and get nothing done. I’m not talking about passing a bill just to pass a bill, but to get the stuff we agree on done, rather than nothing getting done.[/quote]
Agreed, if they could set aside the ideology for a bit there are some things they most likely could agree on. maybe not a lot, but some.
[quote]archiewhittaker wrote:
[quote]Edward wrote:
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
[quote]JoeGood wrote:
Yep, but if it takes baby steps to get there then I’ll start by supporting the removal portions of the tax code where the government punishes or rewards people for lifestyle choices.
I should note I’d PERFER a comsumption tax rather than an income tax.[/quote]
I agree with you there, but a flat tax would allow them to cut programs while also gaining revenue for 100% of people in the US. They gain on both fronts…BUT
Why are they not talking about cutting welfare and aid to illegal immigrants?
[/quote]
A dumb question from an Australian, how do illegal immigrants get welfare in the first place?
[/quote]
Often through family members who are eligible for welfare. In most states ID is needed, but you can go to the DMV and apply for one, don’t have to show any papers.
To add to the thread, somewhat OT: whenever an increasing amount of people demand more benefits, such as welfare and unemployment bennies, there will be more demands from the government as far as economical resources - draining the private sector. If the private sector funds are dwindling because consumers are buying less goods - unreasonable demands from the government must be ignored. Tea Party anyone?
American political thought is built on limited government, if you compare it to the E.U.
What will become of America?
[/quote]
We have an uphill battle but stand a better chance of success if Obama is voted out of office. That’s why I’m not terribly worried about the next two years of potential gridlock. If Obama’s wacky ideas are prevented from becoming a reality we are better off.
[quote]Edward wrote:
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
[quote]JoeGood wrote:
Yep, but if it takes baby steps to get there then I’ll start by supporting the removal portions of the tax code where the government punishes or rewards people for lifestyle choices.
I should note I’d PERFER a comsumption tax rather than an income tax.[/quote]
I agree with you there, but a flat tax would allow them to cut programs while also gaining revenue for 100% of people in the US. They gain on both fronts…BUT
Why are they not talking about cutting welfare and aid to illegal immigrants?
[/quote]
A dumb question from an Australian, how do illegal immigrants get welfare in the first place? Forged ID?
I’m interested because it sounds like an insane idea to give benefits to those who will never pay tax into the system, but maybe i’m missing something obvious[/quote]
Check this out… Child Tax Credits for Illegal Immigrants