As I posted earlier I would gladly pay $4,000 additional taxes next year to see the entitled - medicaid, welfare, food stamps, Obamaphones, 99 weeks unemployment - get the cuts that must be made.
There is no avoiding the "fiscal cliff" - as Europe and particularly Spain, Greece and soon Italy know all too well. If it doesn't happen in January it will happen in some years to come with the current spend, spend, spend mentality of today's democrat.
John F. Kennedy: "Ask NOT what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country".
Today's democrat: "Where's mine?" or "ME, ME, ME".
Imagine the wealth envy that Obama would have piled on JFK today. He would be "evil" and "rich" and "corporatey" - all the buzzwords that get democrat voters foaming at the mouth who are not smart enough to know what is coming. Just keep those checks coming and you have my vote.
How could the 1st Lady demand all schools sell perfect food while people with EBT can now use it to buy fountain soda ? -- Posted by .Rick. on Fri, Nov 23, 2012, at 10:10 AM
Children don't vote. People with EBT's do. It's all about buying that vote.
Children don't vote. People with EBT's do. It's all about buying that vote.
-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Nov 23, 2012, at 10:12 AM
Well, that pretty much cuts through all of the BS I would expect was coming on this thread and puts things in a realistic perspective.
I agree with you Dug.
There is no such thing as a Obama phone. Look up the facts. It is a program that was started under the Reagan administration and expanded under the Clinton administration. The Busch administration then expanded the program to include Cell Phones.
-- Posted by 3forone on Fri, Nov 23, 2012, at 11:49 AM
And there is no such thing as "Obamacare". Doesn't matter. Everyone knows your facts, they just don't matter.
Obama more than doubled the entire program in less than 4 years hence "Obamaphones". It's funny you say there is no such thing as an "Obamaphone" yet the people he gives the phones to call them Obamaphones.
Obama likes this. It makes people think he's a generous loving and caring guy that gives cell phones away for votes. These are your friends that vote for him. Don't disenfranchise them by pointing out that Obama didn't create the program. He might lose a couple of votes.
Makes no difference, the Obama phones as they have become to be known are being paid for by the producers and used by the takers.
It needs to stop, NOW! It is abused and unnecessary.
Doesn't matter. Everyone knows your facts, they just don't matter.
Posted by Dug on Fri, Nov 23, 2012, at 11:57 AM
It does when you use them to skew things to your viewpoint.
Higher taxes and spending cuts. Sounds like bipartisianship to me.
Higher taxes I believe. Spending cuts I will have to see to believe.
Spending cuts will happen when he'll freezes over regardless of whether dems or repubs are in charge.
It does when you use them to skew things to your viewpoint. -- Posted by 3forone on Fri, Nov 23, 2012, at 3:33 PM
I didn't skew anything. If you take 30 seconds to google "Obamaphones" you will find 100's of links. Do you actually believe that I created the term and proliferated it all over the internet? It's a common term to describe the explosion in "free" cell phones that Obama has created by doubling the program. Just like the explosion in welfare money, food stamps, etc. under Obama. You may not like what MILLIONS of people are calling it but I can't help you with that.
-- Posted by Spaniard on Sat, Nov 24, 2012, at 11:20 AM
It's George Bush's fault of course.
From the Washington Examiner:
"In 2008, the program was expanded to support cell phones which quickly escalated the cost of the program. In 2008 the program cost $772 million, but by 2011 it cost $1.6 billion. A 2011 audit found that 269,000 wireless Lifeline subscribers were receiving free phones and monthly service from two or more carriers."
The entire article is here: http://washingtonexaminer.com/where-do-o...
My point you missed is everyone DOES know the whole story - started under Reagan, started to help rural, 911 phone calls, etc. etc. Tell me the lady in the Obamaphone video needs a free cell phone? Tell me how it suddenly doubled under Obama?
Please don't tell me "it's Bush's fault". At some point you Obama supporters have got to get real and realize Obama is responsible for the administration he runs.
Random Guy, you do't seem to understand that nothing is ever Obama's fault. He will blame it on someone else.
The problem is too many damned fools will believe him!
Random Guy, I doubt it. The damned fools will only look for another Obama who will offer them a pot of gravy and deliver a cracked bowl of swamp water.
There always will be those who want and expect the unearned from those who are foolish enough to produce it.
You guys are pathetic..cant accept defeat.
Dexterite you are pathetic...you can't accept the truth.
You guys are pathetic..cant accept defeat. -- Posted by Dexterite1 on Sun, Nov 25, 2012, at 6:59 AM
You are so far up Obama's ****** that you think everyone should just roll over for everything he says or does. I can't imagine being so in love with a politician - it shows in your postings.
The ONLY thing that changed on election day is Obama gets to spend 4 more years ruining this country. He was a terrible example of a president before this last election and he still is today and will likely be in 4 years. No experience, divisive politics, and record unemployment, welfare and debt. Your vote is an acceptance of defeat for this country.
The "fiscal cliff" is Tinker Toys.
Bush dug the d****** cliff many years ago with 2 unnecessary wars. We thanks will be decades digging out, wars still going on. Thanks George.
-- Posted by Dexterite1 on Mon, Nov 26, 2012, at 5:52 AM
Two unnecessary wars? You mean like Afghanistan - now the bin Laden is dead? Or our foray into Libya with fighter jets and troops? You like war - the wars executed by democrats.
It's so funny to see you still hooked on "It's Bushs fault". Made my laugh of the day.
I doubt that congress and the President will let the country go over the fiscal cliff, a deal will be cut between the two parties in the next two to three weeks, and yes it will involve entitlement and tax reform.
"Bush dug the d****** cliff many years ago with 2 unnecessary wars. We thanks will be decades digging out, wars still going on. Thanks George."
$1.2 trillion dollars, spread out over ten years, did not put us 'over the cliff'. The total cost of the wars was less than a single Obama deficit.
Nor did the 'Bush Tax Cuts'. Tax receipts in 2007 and 2008 were higher than at any time in History. In 2009, Mr. Obama and Democrats cut the payroll tax, even as the costs of Medicare and Social Security which it supports were climbing. Today, despite GDP growth, our tax receipts remain below pre-recession levels.
That ain't Mr. Bush's fault, nor is the Republicans, since they voted overwhelmingly against the tax cut.
Dexterite, Ike and a few others on here have the same mindset as Jamie Foxx. Who says, "First of all, give an honor to God and our lord and savior Barack Obama."
Dunno...gotta wait for Obama to get back from his field-trip to Bangkok , Thailand --- you know , those Nations more important then the USA's financial future..
A person has to get their free face time on MSM , they gotta have their priorities , don't ya know....
-- Posted by .Rick. on Mon, Nov 26, 2012, at 12:15 PM
Then it will be a round of TV shows that support him such as The Today Show and that nighttime freakshow I do not watch, Letterman.
"And you claim it's because of the payroll tax cut? Seriously? Do you have evidence to support this? Or just more specious correlation?"
As you can see in this link, individual income tax receipts as of 2011 are back above 2006 levels. Corporate income taxes remain down, and so do payroll tax receipts.
Corporate tax reciepts remain below 2004 levels. But, you can't blame the Bush Tax cuts for that, since they were in place in 2007 and 2008, when they were double their current rates.
Payroll taxes are suppressed by two factors: reduced payrolls and reduced tax rates.
The New York Times estimates that the repeal of the payroll tax cut will increase taxes about $95 billion in 2013. An increase of $95 billion will raise the estimated 2012 reciepts to just about 2007 levels. Ergo, yes, I blame the Payroll tax cut for that.
What evidence do you have that a tax cut that was in place in 2007 and 2008 is resulting in lower tax reciepts in 2011?
They are, but 'the left' will not acknowledge that, just as they will not acknowledge that Mr. Obama's tax cuts have done more to create the deficits than they.
Since Mr. Obama created the Payroll Tax Cut, and signed off on it, I would be more inclined to refer to it as the 'Obama Tax Cuts'.
The press has taken to calling the other ones the 'Bush Era Tax Cuts', in order not to disassociate Mr. Bush from them (and thus keep the finger pointed at him). Changing the moniker to the 'Obama Tax Cuts', given that Mr. Obama already has others to answer for, only confuses things.
-- Posted by Dexterite1 on Sun, Nov 25, 2012, at 6:59 AM
Enjoy making up for the taxes many of us wont be paying in the near future.
Strong leader? Do you mean Santa Claus?
Shapley started his 1:02 post with "As you can see..."
Looks like many "can't see". Or is it they wont see?
If the tax increase on the wealthly goes in to affect it will only raise a shy over 800 billion dollars over a ten year period, which is not even a drop in the bucket compared to how deep we are in debt which is over 16 trillion dollars and soon to be 18 trillion dollars. The governor of New York is requesting 42 billion dollars regarding the damage caused by Sandy, California is bankrupt and so is Illinois look for both of these States come knocking at the door wanting a bail out. We only take in 2.2 trillion a year in revenues but we have over 3.7 trillion a year going out the door. The Postal Service lost 16 billion for 2012. We have not had a operating budget in the past four years. Bottom line is we are in one of hell of a mess and it seems many don't care some times I wonder are we better off to just let it go over the cliff, just may be that might wake some people up so they can really face reality for once. But the myth about increasing taxes on the rich is going to save us is totaling mis-leading and some will find this out as we enter this dark road that is in front of us.
"But the myth about increasing taxes on the rich is going to save us is totaling mis-leading..."
Not increasing the "taxes on the rich" is also not going to "save us."
Increasing some tax rates for upper incomes will make a contribution toward avoiding a "fiscal cliff." So will reforming the overall tax code.
Reducing Social Security and Medicare expenses will also make a contribution.
The reductions in defense spending and other discretionary outlays will make a contribution.
Improving the economy will make a contribution.
Reducing the government payroll by attrition reductions in personnel numbers, and across the board wage and salary redutions will make a contribution.
Reducing the deficit can be accomplished by a balanced combination of all of these approaches.
"Improving the economy will make a contribution."
Since you obviously don't know how to do your own research:
"That is when the temporary payroll tax holiday ends. Its expiration means less income in families' pocketbooks -- the tax increase would be about $95 billion in 2013 alone -- at a time when the economy is little better than it was when the White House reached a deal on the tax break last year."
commonsensematters: How about reducing the huge numbers that are on EBT cards which has been handed out like candy and the continued extended unemployment benefits and most of all something that will crush us if it is not revamped some way and it is called "Obamacare". The day has arrived that we can no longer afford all of this. Everybody needs to at least contribute something including the poor if it just $25.00 per year contribute something help out here get out of the wagon and help us pull the heavy wagon up the hill.
"You always seem to dodge posting direct sources."
The Tax Policy Center was the most-cited source by Democrats for analysis of Mr. Romney's tax plan. Why is it not good enough for citing historical tax receipts?
It clearly shows the total tax revenues and their sources through 2011, with projected revenues beyond that. It shows that Individual Income Tax receipts are above 2006 levels, almost reaching 2007 levels. It also shows, as I've already noted, that Corporate Income Taxes and Payroll Taxes are lagging behind.
Payroll taxes for FICA are normally 15.3% of payroll income, except for income above the Social Security Cutoff, at which they are taxed at 4.9%. Since the Payroll Tax Cut, they were reduced to 13.3% of all income below the cutoff. I do not have a figure for the revenue percentages garnered from income above or below the cap, but for incomes below it, that means that payroll taxes have been cut by about 15%. Since payroll taxes acount for about $800 billion, that would amount to about $120 billion in tax revenue lost. That is pretty simple math. I gather, however, that the $95 billion figure is derived because of the percentage of income above the Social Security cutoff (About $110,000), which is unaffected by the Payroll Tax Cut.
"As to your above statement, I never claimed such. Please try to keep up with this a little better."
You didn't claim what? That the Bush Tax Cuts were responsible for the lowered tax revenue? I didn't say you did, but that has been the mantra we've heard from the Democrats, that the Bush Tax Cuts are responsible for the revenue shortfalls. Yet, as noted, tax revenues were greater with the Bush Tax Cuts in place in 2007 and 2008 than there were before them, and than they are today.
Given that GDP has risen to pre-recession levels, there is no reason to believe the Bush-Era Tax Rates should not be bringing in Bush-Era Tax revenues. Not so, so some other factor must be in play. Mr. Obama Cut Taxes with his Stimulus Bill, and those tax cuts are still in force. The logical way to point the finger is to suggest that the Obama Tax Cuts are responsible for the revenue shortfalls, not the Bush Tax Cuts.
Reducing the deficit can be accomplished by a balanced combination of all of these approaches. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Nov 27, 2012, at 7:39 AM
Then why would you vote for Obama? You don't believe ANY of the things you posted!
Obama said if you attempt to "Reducing Social Security and Medicare expenses" you are pushing granny over a cliff. Yet you voted for him.
Obama increased the size of government to historical levels but you say "Reducing the government payroll by attrition reductions in personnel numbers". Yet you voted for him.
Why? Party before country I guess?
Dug it is like talking to a concrete wall they will find out in the very near future when reality just might set in with some of them, no doubt huge cuts are on the way. They will find out there is no Santa Claus or "Hey Santa Claus lied to me".
Swamp - so true!
You see the liberal Obama supporters posting on here like they're reasonable people that support changes to social security, medicare, medicaid, etc. etc. but they vote for someone who demagogues anything that even suggest changing government programs.
You can pretend to be a moderate all you want but you're still a far-left liberal. Or as Biden said "you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig".
I would honestly say that I could be Obama's biggest fan yet - if he greatly reduces federal spending, keeps lower tax rates, stands up for HIS country like many other presidents/prime ministers do and reduces the reach of the federal government.
I would bet my life against that happening.
I see nothing good coming out of Washington until they get Harry Reid out of the Senate leadership position he holds. He has to go down in history as the worst to ever hold that office.
You cant do that. It would be such an inconvenience to those that would have walk there while talking on their Obamaphones. Someone could get hurt.
The good thing is how much cheese does it take to by beer and cigarettes? Can you imagine how many would just drop out of the program?
I have never seen a person so hell bent to get a tax increase passed as our President is. He defines people making $250,000 a year as being "rich" that is far from being "rich" as he put's it. If the tax increase is passed over a ten year period it will only bring in a little over 800 billion dollars in a ten year period a drop in the bucket the threshold needs to be set at one million dollars or more a year. Entitlement reform is where the problem is such as all of the Food Stamps being handed out like candy and extended unemployment benefits now at 72 weeks, people bragging about receiving a government hand out, 22 billion dollars in Pell grants and making statements right out in public "why should I work when I can collect from the government and sit home" I heard a guy make that statement just the other day at a local gas station where he was purchasing fuel I couldn't believe what I was hearing they brag about it now and they really don't care where they are at. Doesn't Washington see that or is it all about "votes".
-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Wed, Nov 28, 2012, at 1:44 PM
Well it will be 8.5 days worth. What a joke. CUT THE SPENDING!!!!!
"Boehner's lieutenants say the White House has been slow to engage."
Yes, because there is a heap of s*** being spread around and the head slimeball in the White House is going to try and keep any of it from soiling his image.
Such is the Democrats' definition of 'compromise' - the Republicans must agree to specific tax increases now in exchange for some vague promise of spending cuts in the future.
The idea of actually cutting spending now is foreign to the them, unless it is defense spending.
Last night I listened to some Democratic Senator pontificate on solving the tax problem for the 98% now, as time is running out.... then we can work on what is fair for the other 2%. The deceitful ******* could not hardly keep a straight face as he was mouthing that particular talking point.
Let er go over the cliff.... then see how the big shot b******s work their way out of it later.
According to Forbes:
"This is the insanity of Washington: We're being told another recession looms unless we avoid automatic tax hikes and spending cuts scheduled for Jan. 1. So powerful insiders are negotiating a "bipartisan deal" behind closed doors to give us ... tax hikes and spending cuts."
And then those tax hikes and spending cuts just kick the can down the road. They will do nothing to solve the problem because there will be no "hard choices" made in regard to spending. I think the deal is already made but the drama will continue until Christmas just to make us think that they are working very hard on it for us.
Posting a comment requires free registration: