Republicans R Idiots

[CuteOldGuy]

I don't approve of tax increases on the rich, mainly because they are pointless. To make such a big deal out of them like the Republicans are is ridiculous.

1. Spending MUST come under control.
2. Spending will only have a prayer of coming under a minute amount of control if Democrats support a plan.
3. Democrats will never agree to a plan that does not include tax increases on the rich.
4. This move by the Republicans proves they are only after political points, and not the best interest of the country.

Sure, Speaker Boehner, try to get the vote of someone out of work, or facing foreclosure by telling them that you protected the rich. That will work. You at least have to give the APPEARANCE of wanting to relieve some of the pain of the working person. You can relieve a lot pain by getting spending under control. And don't worry about the rich. THEY CAN HANDLE IT!!

It is more important that we get spending under control than we hold on to this supply-side ideology. (Supply side would work in a capitalist system, but we don't have that anymore. Now all supply side does is line the pockets at Goldman Sachs.)

Get over yourselves, morons! You can gain a lot by giving a little. It will be much easier to sell the spending cuts needed if the pain is spread across the board. Most of the necessary spending cuts are going to effect lower and middle class Americans. If the rich appear to be getting off scot free, it ain't gonna fly.

Respectfully, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Cantor, Senator McConnell and Senator Kyl, PULL YOUR HEADS OUT OF YOUR ASSES AND DO SOMETHING!!!!!!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories

[|||||||||||||||||]

ron paul 2012!!

[JD Barleycorn]

Sorry COG, you've missed an important point about tax increases. The "rich" are the job creators. I used to work for a guy that would call rich. His company probably made about 18 million dollars a year. He had about 140 people working for him. At our annual company meetings his budget people broke down the pertinent details for us; 70% of his gross went to salaries, maintenance, utilities, workmen's comp, unemployment insurance, and health insurance. You say he is still rich but he turned around and invested a good portion of his gross in new equipment which needed more people to run. My guess is that he probably put about 1.5 million to 2 million in his pocket every year. You say the guy doesn't deserve that kind of money. His father started the company over 30 years ago and he has been running for over 15 years since his father left. He is very active in the community with donations and is a member of a group that choose a cause every year to finance and support. Raising taxes on this man would mean less money to reinvest in equipment which less growth and fewer jobs (also fewer pay raises and bonuses). That is that tax money that the democrats so casually want to take to spend on shrimp exercise and bailing out Italian banks. That tax money provides jobs for Americans.

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Sorry COG, you've missed an important point about tax increases. The "rich" are the job creators. I used to work for a guy that would call rich. His company probably made about 18 million dollars a year. He had about 140 people working for him. At our annual company meetings his budget people broke down the pertinent details for us; 70% of his gross went to salaries, maintenance, utilities, workmen's comp, unemployment insurance, and health insurance. You say he is still rich but he turned around and invested a good portion of his gross in new equipment which needed more people to run. My guess is that he probably put about 1.5 million to 2 million in his pocket every year. You say the guy doesn't deserve that kind of money. His father started the company over 30 years ago and he has been running for over 15 years since his father left. He is very active in the community with donations and is a member of a group that choose a cause every year to finance and support. Raising taxes on this man would mean less money to reinvest in equipment which less growth and fewer jobs (also fewer pay raises and bonuses). That is that tax money that the democrats so casually want to take to spend on shrimp exercise and bailing out Italian banks. That tax money provides jobs for Americans.

Same ole GOP propaganda, most of the time the rich put the money in their pocket. I used to believe in this ideal but time has proven that it does not work anymore in my opinion.

[catnipdipper]

The GOP has got to get away from the Worship at the Altar of the Corporation.

Left to their own devices they have consistently and historically proven not to have the best interests of the American people in their hearts.

COG, just a token give would settle the whole thing. Every business over time will have to raise more revenue regardless of it's cost cutting.

Charging what the market will bear to the more wealthy is not much different that people choosing to eat at Home Country Buffet or the Capitol Grille depending on their financial abilities.

[kcbigpapa]

Originally Posted by catnipdipper

The GOP has got to get away from the Worship at the Altar of the Corporation.

Dems are just as guilty as the GOP on this cat.

[SinsOfTheFlesh]

I think the Republicans are on the right track, but I think they are making the wrong argument.

The biggest reason to oppose even discussing a tax increase is because we have absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that compromising on raising taxes will actually lead to a balanced budget - let alone a surplus that would allow us to begin paying our debt down.

In 1956 President Eisenhower actually paid down our debt. Since then - for more than 50 years and counting, we have added to our debt year after year after year. Every President and every Congress has promised a balanced budget, and promised to pay down our debt, but it never happens.

At over $14 trillion in debt, I don't think anyone actually believes we can ever pay our debt off without raising taxes to do it. But for my part, I have absolutely zero interest in discussing even the tiniest of tax increases - on ANY income bracket - until I've seen tangible proof that Congress can and will balance the budget.

Look at the utter waste of time all the back and forth over a gov't shutdown proved to be. After all the grandstanding and showmanship, Congress couldn't even reduce spending by one measly percent. Are we really to believe that despite their inability to make even a half hearted attempt at spending reduction, that this same Congress will suddenly be inspired to become fiscally competent when they clearly haven't been before?

Furthermore, I have no confidence whatsoever in a proposal to raise taxes for the purpose balancing the budget when those same tax increases have been proposed to pay for half a dozen different ideas. Go back through Obama's speeches. Every pet project he proposes, he says the funding for it can come from eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Its been his mantra since he was a Presidential hopeful. How many different ways can he spend the same revenue? I have every reason to believe that if we cave and agree to a tax increase, all that will do is create new spending, not produce a balanced budget.

Sorry, Congress has been Lucy with the football one time too many. We the people are poor old Charlie, falling for the same promises again and again, and I'm not interested in saying "Oh, good grief" yet again.

[Kshunter]

Is it more important to look good in the media and to the simpleminded, or is it more important to actually do things right for a change?

The Republicans have compromised on tax increases in exchange for spending cut promises by the Democrats multiple times - under Reagan, under Bush Sr., and with Clinton. Each time the tax increases happened and the spending cuts didn't. There's no reason to believe that this bunch of Dems - the slimiest ever - would keep a promise either. Under Reagan, the tax increases went to pay for new spending. Under Bush and Clinton, the tax increases went to pay the INTEREST on new borrowing and spending. Under Obama? Interest on the interest?

And of course, JB is absolutely right about the job creation aspect. Ever get a job from a poor person?


Without serious, multi-TRILLION dollar cuts in spending, nothing good will happen. It's been proven that there isn't - and won't be - enough taxes available to balance the budget.

[KCJoe]

Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

In 1956 President Eisenhower actually paid down our debt. Since then - for more than 50 years and counting, we have added to our debt year after year after year. Every President and every Congress has promised a balanced budget, and promised to pay down our debt, but it never happens.

I guess the Clinton $236.2 billion surplus wasn't used to pay down debt?

http://factcheck.org/2008/02/the-bud...under-clinton/

Tax rates are the lowest they've ever been and where is the job creation? Tax rates don't determine whether an employer hires, it's the demand for their products. Tax rates during the Clinton years didn't hold down the economy, it boomed.

[catnipdipper]

KCBIGPAPA;

A Dem may also worship but is much much more discrete about it. GOPers literally foam at the mouth and run their tongues over corporate boots begging for minimum wage job creation.

A Dem on the other hand will just get his cousin a good job.

[SinsOfTheFlesh]

Well, it took about an hour longer than I expected before someone trotted out this worn out chestnut, but I knew someone wouldn't be able to resist.

There was NEVER a surplus. Ever. Take a look at our historical debt. Our debt increased every single year that Clinton was in office. Our debt has increased every single year since 1957. Every. Single. Year. (I have to correct myself, I typed 1956 in my original post)

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...ebt_histo4.htm

Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr - every last one of them added to our debt without ever repaying so much as one red cent.

The so-called "Clinton surplus" was ONLY a surplus on paper, and was ONLY a surplus because it included SS funds as part of the general budget, AND included some very rosey revenue projections that were never, EVER going to happen.

Our leaders have been selling us a bill of goods for 5 long decades. This isn't the first time our trusted leaders wanted to raise taxes in order to balance the budget. It won't be the last time either. How many more times is Lucy going to promise to hold onto that football for you before you wise up?

It is time Congress actually earned our trust for a change. It would take a massive, across the board tax hike to actually balance the budget. The *small* tax increases our trusted leaders are proposing won't even reduce the yearly deficit to less than $1 trillion - PER YEAR! To fully balance the budget, Congress must slash at a minimum, $1 trillion in spending. Lets do THAT first, show the American people they are actually capable of managing our money, THEN we'll talk about how to get the rest of the way to a real, honest to God surplus.

Originally Posted by KCJoe

I guess the Clinton $236.2 billion surplus wasn't used to pay down debt?

http://factcheck.org/2008/02/the-bud...under-clinton/

Tax rates are the lowest they've ever been and where is the job creation? Tax rates don't determine whether an employer hires, it's the demand for their products. Tax rates during the Clinton years didn't hold down the economy, it boomed.

[Kshunter]

Well played, gorgeous.

[Guest052813-01]

Originally Posted by dirty dog

Same ole GOP propaganda, most of the time the rich put the money in their pocket. I used to believe in this ideal but time has proven that it does not work anymore in my opinion.

You know, DD, I hate to say this, but you're an ass. The person described in barleycorn's post is similar to the person whose business I am working for right now. His company is over 100 years old, his revenues and reinvestments are similar. He and his management staff took a salary cut last year and froze all salaries for a year so that they wouldn't have to fire anyone. He invests in the community and provides many perks to his employees. To raise taxes on him, and other small businesses that the Bamster and the Dems describe as rich would destroy 90% of the businesses in this country. Your opinion of the rich is probably slanted due to large corporations, but most businesses are nowhere near large, but their owners would be defined as "the rich" because they earn more than $250,000.00 per year. So just STFU.

[CuteOldGuy]

Stacy's as smart as her avatar is hot!

Well, I had a lengthy defense to my position all ready to post, but you guys are right. These clowns on both sides are only arguing talking points, they aren't going to do what is necessary to save the economy.

I was a victim of "premature jubilation."

I actually thought that if they were talking, something might get done. History does not support that.

Sorry I brought it up. Still, Republicans R Idiots, and Democrats R Idiots.

[jhawq88]

"Still, Republicans R Idiots, and Democrats R Idiots."

Well said COG, i was just going to admonish you for painting with such a broad brush, but it seems i was a little late to the party, as always. The reason i was late...you all know...COG's fault.