Geothermal heating -- worth considering?

Page 4 of 7  
wrote:

The top 5% paid 58.66% in 2009 i.e. those with AGI over ~$155K <http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
Now today, 155K is not an exorbitantly high income, in fact Mitt says you're barely middle class with 200-250K. Even the top 1% has an AGI of just over 394K.
I am saying that people with less than those amounts in income should pay less than they do now, and those that have higher incomes should pay more than they do now. First step would be to limit the favorable treatment of divds&capgains to a maximum, above which it would gradually be taxed at rates of wage incomes. Also, everyone should pay payroll taxes such as FICA and MediCare over the first $110,100, regardless of whether it is "earned" as wages or divds/capgains.

OK, that is what Romney's accountants claim, but it has not been vetted, and as such is only his word. Note that the letter quoted above, or comments thereon state that Romney could very easily amend his return and reclaim the half million or so that he "overpaid" for 2011. For now, his generous gesture to forgo those 2 million in "charitable" tithing (completely legal as charitable) is just that a gesture, he can take that $500,000 almost anytime he wants to within the next ~3 years.

You're right, Reid should apologize AND publish the name of his source.

What is wrong with a flat tax is, that it isn't. It's a slogan and a lie. You yourself say that there ought to be a limit to the income under which no tax is paid. That makes it "unflat". And it makes taxation implicitly progressive. So there is no reason that an income of $100,000 should be taxed the same (over the minimum) as an income of $100,000,000, and no reason a personal income of $1 billion shouldn't be taxed at even higher rates.

That's not what I was trying to say. First eliminate the loopholes and skewing deductions (we could discuss which ones those should be), then tax at increasing rates incomes over X, Y, Z, similar to what is done now. And yes, I am liberal enough to want people who can afford it to pay more.

Now you are just mumbling Tea Party nonsense. You say there ought to be a minimum under which no /federal/ taxes are paid. Those 46% of households are exactly that. They pay all the other taxes, sales, FICA, state, gas, property etc.

Glad you caught my hyperbole! The (now old) premise of Romney was that by lowering the rates (which would have benefitted the rich most) he would increase employment and thereby lift the poor out of poverty. When that was debunked as pure hocus, because trickle down has never worked, he changed his tune and says now that people shouldn't expect less total taxes, because as he lowers tax rates, he is going to eliminate tax loopholes. Now he is becoming a socialist, because the loopholes are used by the rich, not the poor, so the rich would pay more even though the rates would be lowered. No wonder he is sinking in the polls.

I fully admit being confused with all the flat tax proposals that aren't flat tax. As I said, flat tax is a slogan and a lie. Read again what I just said above.

OK, I get your confusion. If 50K is not taxed, and between 50 and 100K is taxed at say 20%, the tax on 60K would be 2K, or 3.3% of the total of 60K (if I calculate correctly). Tax on 75K would be 5K, or 6.7%, and tax on 100K would be 10% of the total. That's what I meant by floating.

Congress, representing the people, introduced economic incentives into the tax code(s). Yes that introduced "distortions" that were seen as beneficial to the wellbeing of all. Because of a whole bunch of reasons, people took advantage of rules, gamed them, and committed fraud on a wide scale. People with responsibilities looked the other way, with wishful thinking or malice, doesn't matter anymore, because the statute of limitations is running out soon. Of course I embrace mortgage interest deductions and property tax deductions. sing Mitt's words, I'd be unfit if I didn't follow the rules.

Fine by me in principle. I would prefer rates of 10, 20, 30, perhaps even 50% for the highest incomes. For the same reasons you mention. Everyone should have a stake in these taxes, but lower incomes need a boost by having lower rates than higher incomes.

I could use epithets too, but won't. Just pay attention. If you suddenly eliminate mortage interst and property taxes as deductions (which I think are some of the bigger loopholes in current tax rules), that would really screw a lot of people. By setting a cap on those deductions that are NOT subject to COLA, you eventually get close to eliminate a large part of those deductions, in a much less painful way.

It isn't complicated at all. Simplifying is what it is all about, but you can't radically change things in one fell swoop without hurting a lot of people.

Just try to think about it.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The term "flat tax" is often misused, but there are other forms of taxation besides what mess we have now.
The code has to be greatly simplified. Most deductions should be eliminated. Credit card interest was and so should home mortgage and home equity. Want that $150,000 RV? Sure you can get a tax break. If you want to go into debt over your head on a house, why should you get a tax break for doing so? If you want to have 12 kids, good for you, but why do you get a tax break for making babies? That may have made some sense 200 years ago when they wanted to populate the country.
You can still have a 0% bracket under say, $20,000 a year, then 5% to $60k, then 15% for everything above.
Why should so many people need a paid tax preparer for what should be a simple form?
The problem with a simple tax setup is that it puts lawyers and accountants out of work. Won't ever happen.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Correct. But you do know Ed that in your and my corner of the US deductibility of mortgage interest, and state and property taxes would be tough to nix. I owe a pittance on my home, with a 2.24% interest, but my kids owe much larger amounts and they wouldn't like having that deduction removed. Apart from theresistance from the lawyers and accountants.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Home ownership has been the American Dream for decades. But should the government subsidize it?
The difference between owing and renting usually comes down to two things: down payment and credit. Typical month rent is about the same as a mortgage payment.
I probably would have complained if it was eliminated when I had a mortgage but I've not been able to itemize deductions for a few years now.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Of course Han is against your proposal too, which is a flatter tax, with two rates. I think the rates would have to be a bit higher to make it revenue neutral as I think there are a lot of people paying 20% or so today. But it's basicly the same concept that Romney and other Republicans have put forth for years. The libs of course want nothing to do with it. They prefer to remain in dreamland, pretending that if there is a top rate of 70%, the rich actually pay it. The truth is few ever did and many rich people today are paying a lower percentage than middle class folks. Romney and Buffet are examples of that. A flat tax, or your flatter tax would fix that.
I'm still waiting for some simple answers from Han. The same questions that I've seen libs refuse to give an answer again and again:
For someone in the upper 5% of incomes, what percentage of their income should the govt take?
For someone in the upper 1% of incomes, what percentage of their income should the govt take?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What do you suggest? -- Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I am too lazy to go back over this thread, but I believe I have stated something like rates of 20, 30, 50, 70% at something like 100K, 1 million, 50 million, 200 million. It really isn't the exact numbers, but the principles. And as a liberal person, I believe that lower incomes need more help than higher incomes. If you consider that punishing people who are doing well, so be it.
As far as the upper 5% of income, the problem with setting rates there is that very many people who fall in that "slice" are not really rich. In this country the curve of income versus % of people getting that income is extremely steep at the high end. Therefore, it would be better to focus on the 1% and the 0.1% if you want to extract revenue.
Btw, there seem to be coming more and more (liberal or not) proposals for reducing the deficit. One of the latest is from Taxpayers for Common Sense at www.taxpayer.net. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxpayers_for_Common_Sense> says: <quote> Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS) is a nonpartisan federal budget watchdog organization based in Washington, D.C. in the United States. TCS is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit organization; its 501(c)(4) affiliate is Taxpayers for Common Sense Action (TCS Action). The current president of TCS is Ryan Alexander. Founded in 1995 by Jill Lancelot and Rafael DeGennaro, TCS works to ensure that the federal government spends taxpayer money efficiently and responsibly. </quote> Perhaps we all should take a look at <http://www.taxpayer.net/resources.php?category=&type=Project&proj_id 5502&action=Headlines%20By%20TCS> and <http://www.taxpayer.net/user_uploads/file/FederalBudget/2012/TCS_Budget_ Cuts_SlidingPastSequestration_October1.pdf>
Please note that Congress always plays to the funders of their next re- election campaign. The people should be pushing them to do the right thing. IMO, that means we should discuss all possibilities, be ready for compromise, and above all stay polite. I KNOW that many here do not agree with my opinions, which makes me sometimes state them more strongly than I might mean. That is because I think that the opinions here are generally much more to the right than they are in other groups.
And, I mean my "Best regards" to all Han
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I see, so it isn't principled enough for you that the upper 1% is already paying 33% of the total tax burden. So, yes, I consider that to be punishing people who are doing well and already contributing 33 times their respective share.
Also, you're tilting at windmills. Do you realize how little in revenue this would amount to? You only want a tax of 20% on incomes from $100K to $1million. That sure gives one hell of a lot of rich people a rate of only 20%. Then from $1mil to $50mil you have a rate of 30%. And there are so few people left after $50 mil of income that it isn' worth even talking about. I don't think you've even thought this out.
Most of those $50mil+ would be people who have some extraordinary income one year, like selling off a business they spent a lifetime building. And then, with your 70% tax rates in place, they would be quick to figure out a way around it, ie selling the business off over time so that they fall into your $1mil to $50mil bracket where it's taxed at only 30%. That is exactly what is being done now.
So again, why all the class warfare? Why force people to restructure their income to avoid your crazy punitive rates? It also creates economic distortions and interfers with efficient capital utilization. Let's say an investor decides a stock he has invested in has peaked out and may decline. If you have a flat tax, he can sell it all right now and put that money to work in a new investment. That moves capital to where it;s needed and can do the most good. Faced with a high taxation rate, the investor may delay selling or they will sell only some this year and wait to sell some more next year to escape your confiscatory rates. In the end the govt doesn't get the 70% you think it's going to produce and the economy suffers from sub-optimized capital allocation.

The problem is that there isn't very much revenue to be "extracted" Obama's big plan to raise taxes to solve the deficit, do you even know how much that amounts to? It's a whopping $75bil. The freaking deficit is $1.2tril. See the problem?
And your extracting takes money out of the free economy where it is productive and puts it into big govt with much of it going down a rat hole. Let's say someone has a profit of $2mil from selling a business or investing in stock. Do you think they are going to eat it? Or do you think a lot, probably the vast majority of it is going to go into another business or another stock investment? That process creates jobs. Taking the money and giving it away for social programs does not.

That's nice. How many of their proposals for reducing govt waste has Obama put into effect? How many has he championed and asked Congress to act on? See the problem?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

If I had all the answers in excruciating detail, I'd give them to you. Obama has proposed some things and gotten blocked. But now is the moment that polite and rational discussion should take place so we can all together pressure the lame duck Cngress to do something that is at least somewhat constructive. I think that for the sake of FICA that tax holliday should go, as it probably will. I never liked the idea of robbing that kitty to stimulate spending by working people. But what about an equivalent tax break/credit for those earning less than the current ~$110,000 FICA limit? To be paid for by an increase in taxes elsewhere (I'd prefer loophole cuts, but an extra tax on higher incomes would be fine too). There are currently limits on all kinds of deductions (medical is an example). Perhaps we can do a reverse limit - rather than making only amounts over a certain percentage of AGI deductible, we could limit profligate spending (ahum) by limiting the deduction for mortgage interest, property and state taxes to a % of AGI.
At the moment it seems to me that class warfare is going very strongly against the poorer people, with all the statistics pointing to an ever increasing rate of wealth being accumulated by rather few people. Perhaps, there isn't all that much money to be collected from the rich by increased taxation. Mitt paid a tax rate of let's say 15% ($3 million) for round figures. Had he paid a 40% tax rate, that would have been $8 million. He had a very large deduction for charitable contributions. An upper limit to those would be a good thing (IMO). Still it would be a paltry sum to distribute over all the households in the US. But how many are there like Romney? I bet it would add up, especially if it were to go to the poorest quintile. Or to the deficit. And yes, there might have been less material things purchased by the Romneys.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It isn't that you don't have all the answers in excruciating detail. You brought up the Taxpayers for Common Sense. They seem to have a long list of govt waste and programs that should be cut. Obama has been president for 4 years. I just want some examples where he's cut something. He sure has increased spending by 40%, so if he's cut anything, it sure can't amount to much.
But I know, his plan just needs more time.....

Obama got through what he deemed important. That was Obamacare and his $800bil stimulus that he told us would keep unemployment under 8%. It peaked at 10%, was over 9% for two years and is still over 8%. The Democrats controlled the Senate and House for his first two years. He could have passed anything he wanted. He has no excuses. Reagan never had control of the House, only had control of the Senate for part of his years, yet he got through a stimulus that worked. By now in the Reagan presidency we were creating 400,000 jobs a month. One month we hit 1.2mil. Obama is lucky to break 100,000.

Polite? You mean like Obama treated Paul Ryan? You mean like he just insulted Netenyahu? That kind of polite? When John Bohner became speaker, the White House didn't even have his phone number so they could call him.
On July 26, Obama held his second cabinet meeting for the year. The last one was in January. Does that sound like leadership or what a president should be doing? He hasn't met with his Jobs Council in SIX MONTHS. That's right, with unemployment over 8%, he hasn't deemed it important enough to even hold a meeting. See the problem and why being polite isn't the issue?

Do you really think tinkering around the margins of the current tax system is going to make any difference? Why bother? Now simplifying the whole thing, making it a flatter tax, while getting rid of most deductions, that could make a difference. But you won't get there because you insist on tilting at windmills, trying to impose a 70% tax on the rich that we all know that for the most part, they have never paid. All that does is create economic distortions and poor allocation of capital. Instead of people being free to put their money to work where they know it will be most productive, they have to channel it into what they need to do to avoid 70% tax rates.

I'd like to see one successful society where the country grew into an economic miracle where the rich didn't get richer. Just like with taxes, you have a static view of the rich and the poor. With taxes, you assume that if you levy a 70% tax, people will just pay it. They won't. They adjust accordingly and a lot of it is avoided. A classic example of this is the foolish tax on luxury yachts. That was class warfare. Screw that rich guy. Well, the folks that got screwed were the boat builders and all the workers that lost their jobs.
In the case of the rich and the poor, you assume that the guy that is poor today is going to be poor tomorrow. This country has an outstanding record, up until now, where individuals are free to work themselves up and improve their economic situation. For examples, look at the boat people from Vietnam who came here in the 70s with nothing. Before long most of them were middle class, many better, working hard, building businesses, etc. The essential component to this and to the deficit is TO GROW THE ECONOMY. And you don't do that by campaigning to raise taxes on business owners and having an anti-business outlook and agenda. All that will change if Romney replaces Obama.

That is straight out of the lib playbook. Charities help the poor and needy. And they have a pretty fine record of doing it. Why would anyone want to discourage people from giving money to them and instead have the govt take that money? Only libs because they insist that the govt help those in need because they want people more dependent on the govt, more dependent on the politicians that pander for their votes. The founding fathers must be turning over in their graves on that one.

You could get more money out of Romney and folks like Warren Buffet by going to a flat tax with a rate of 20% as I and others have proposed. That would be close to a 33% increase in the tax Buffet pays. But that isn't enough, because you won't settle for some more. You want rates as high as 70%. I'd like to know on' what moral basis you think the govt has a right to take 70% of what someone has made? And again, typically the folks that would fall into those high brackets would be someone who for some reason has an extraordinary year. Like someone who built a business over a lifetime and then sold it. Or someone that sells the family farm that has been in the family for generations. What gives the govt the right to take 70% of that? And then of course the state could take 7 or 10% more, maybe the city grabs a bit. Then they would be left with what, less than 20% of what was theirs?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Liberals operate out of hatred, and party line. Trying to talk sense into liberals is like trying to explain to a hungry bear that he'll get more nutritonal value out of a tofu patty than by eating you.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
I'd like to see one successful society where the country grew into an economic miracle where the rich didn't get richer. Just like with taxes, you have a static view of the rich and the poor. With taxes, you assume that if you levy a 70% tax, people will just pay it. They won't. They adjust accordingly and a lot of it is avoided. A classic example of this is the foolish tax on luxury yachts. That was class warfare. Screw that rich guy. Well, the folks that got screwed were the boat builders and all the workers that lost their jobs.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
When otherwise intelligent people talk but don't make sense, they have a hidden agenda. Libs have a hidden agenda.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
That is straight out of the lib playbook. Charities help the poor and needy. And they have a pretty fine record of doing it. Why would anyone want to discourage people from giving money to them and instead have the govt take that money? Only libs because they insist that the govt help those in need because they want people more dependent on the govt, more dependent on the politicians that pander for their votes. The founding fathers must be turning over in their graves on that one.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As I'm sure you know, presidents can't cut spending. Only Congress can. The last time Congress passed a budget was three months into Obama's term. The government has been funded on continuing resolutions since.

No. The Democrats lost filibuster control of the Senate in February 2010, with the by election of Scott Brown. That was less than a year into Obama's term. A third of the stimulus package was tax cuts, so at least that should warm your heart.
As for jobs, you're right. It didn't hold unemployment to 8%. But an interesting question is how much worse it would have been without the package. The Congressional Budget Office says that it would have been as much as 0.8% worse without the package.

Our tax code is flat out (pun intended) broken. Why limit the tinkering to a flat tax? That still leaves most of the paperwork and government intrusion into private affairs. Why not a consumption tax?
Straight ahead VAT. The guy who buys a Mercedes pays more than the guy who buys a Kia. Exempt food, housing, and clothing if you want to give a break to lower income folks. State sales taxes mean that most businesses already have the basis to figure and pay it. Individuals get out of the tax filing process entirely.
It would probably have to be around 23% to be revenue neutral and that would really get people's attention. But their paychecks would go up by about the same amount. They'd like that.
-- Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As I'm sure you know, the Republicans have tried to make cuts. The House has passed lots of budget proposals that do exactly that. The Senate, controlled by the Democrats, is the body that hasn't passed a budget in 3 years.
Also, Obama was on 60 Minutes just last week, talking about how wasteful spending needs to be reduced to address the deficit. And then he insists that it must be done only as part of plan that includes raising taxes. Now, if the govt is going broke, if we've already piled up $220,000 in debt for a family of four, why can't spending be cut regardless of whether taxes are raised or not? Isn't it Obama's job to eliminate waste, control spending? Why must he raise taxes to cut wasteful spending?

Waahh! Wahhhh! The Democrats only had a filibuster proof Senate for less than a year..... What excuse will you come up with next? Real presidents that were leaders, like Reagan, never needed a filibuster proof Senate. During the Reagan years, Republicans never had control of the House at all, never had a filibuster proof Senate. Yet, he got the job done and didn't make excuses.
And it's about as lame as it gets to bitch that the Dems only had a filibuster proof Sentate for less than a year. The country was and is in a crisis. How about getting off their lazy asses and doing what needs to be done? The truth is they DID pass what they deemed important. And that was primarily Obamacare and the $800bil stimulus. Now, if they spent all that time on Obamacare instead of other priorities, they have no one to blame but themselves.

That may very well be true. And if they had passed the right stimulus package, instead of one that spend $300K to create each job, by now we'd have unemployment at 7%.

A flat tax would eliminate much of the paperwork. You wouldn't have pages for deductions, pages for the AMT, pages for special energy tax credits, etc. However, I'm not opposed to considering a VAT or consumption tax approach as long as the income tax is then eliminated. One problem with a consumption tax is that the libs will never go for it. One of our resident libs here is adamantly opposed to a flatter tax system, where most income would be taxed at say 20 or 25% and most deductions eliminated. He insists on raising the top marginal rate to 70%, essentially tilting at windmills, because almost no one would actually pay it.

I agree, it has merits and is worth considering. But again, you'd never get the libs to agree to it. And part of their argument is valid. You have Warren Buffet paying 14% now. Under a VAT, he'd go from paying 14% to probably paying only 1%, because like many very wealthy people, he only spends a small portion of what he earns.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
When both parties manage to continue the tax nightmare, and complicated mess, it becomes clear that both parties benefit from that nightmare.
I'm wondering if a third party vote is "wasted", or if voting for Dem or Rep is a false choice, and they are all in bed together? We change Dems and Reps every few years. Debt keeps going up, and we keep wasting money on illegals, and on foreign wars.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
And it's about as lame as it gets to bitch that the Dems only had a filibuster proof Sentate for less than a year. The country was and is in a crisis. How about getting off their lazy asses and doing what needs to be done? The truth is they DID pass what they deemed important. And that was primarily Obamacare and the $800bil stimulus. Now, if they spent all that time on Obamacare instead of other priorities, they have no one to blame but themselves.
A flat tax would eliminate much of the paperwork. You wouldn't have pages for deductions, pages for the AMT, pages for special energy tax credits, etc. However, I'm not opposed to considering a VAT or consumption tax approach as long as the income tax is then eliminated. One problem with a consumption tax is that the libs will never go for it. One of our resident libs here is adamantly opposed to a flatter tax system, where most income would be taxed at say 20 or 25% and most deductions eliminated. He insists on raising the top marginal rate to 70%, essentially tilting at windmills, because almost no one would actually pay it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The House passing a budget that is known to be DOA in the Senate is politics, not governance.

It can, if a majority agrees on how and what to cut. To lay this off on Democrats is wrong. They are elected to represent their constituencies, too. They feel taxes need to be raised to preserve programs that are important. You don't have to agree, but they have the right to hold those views.
The problem with the "my way or no way" approach being taken by both sides is you end up with "no way". We stagger along on continuing resolutions until we drop off the cliff.

It is his job to see that money appropriated is spent as appropriated. But when Congress appropriates money for bridges to nowhere, there is nothing he can do.

Who's making excuses? I was just getting the history straight.

It is hard to hold Obama out as an outstanding leader. But you said yourself, the Republicans have changed since Reagan. They are further right and less willing/able to compromise. The moderate Republicans (you call them "RINOS") have all but disappeared. Likewise, the conservative, largely southern, Democrats are gone as well. The middle has gone empty and both sides are hiding behind machine guns poking through barb wire.

They also passed Dodd-Frank, not a prize winner. Everyone sold out to the banks on that one. Let's bring back Glass-Steagall. Oh, yeah, they extended the Bush tax cuts for everyone. You've gotta like that.
But what else should they have spent their time on? A radical fix to the tax code would have helped, followed by a promise not to mess with it for 10 years. I would suggest the biggest job killer is uncertainty and that is both parties' fault.

OK. You're going to have to give some support to that one. What does the right package look like and how does it get us to 7%?
-- Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

So you believe the Senate runs the show and the House can only pass what the Majority Leader of the Senate says it can? That's *not* the way the Constitution works.

No, it's not wrong. Democrats are where the increases have come from. They're fighting to KEEP INCREASING. Ever hear of "baseline budgeting"? Democrats live by it.

Sometimes war is inevitable. Compromise only works if both sides are playing. Giving half a loaf every week will get you pretty close to a loaf in a short time. We can't afford it.

Bridges to nowhere don't constitute 40% of the "budget" (there isn't one) that's unfunded.

s/history/spin/
<giggle>
Nonsense. It's the Democrats who have gone over the left edge. There are no more Zell Millers in the party. They've all been driven out.

Are you really that stupid? Olympia Snow? Susan Collins? OTOH, the Democrats have even chased the center-left (e.g. Lieberman) out of the party.

Thrown out. It's not just the Southern Democrats. *ANYONE* not on the left edge has been thrown out.

No arguments there.

Yes, you really do. ...if you want the economy to get off its ass.

Promises can't work. It's unconstitutional, for one and not at all smart. Reform is truly needed. Back to the Reagan rules would be a big step forward.0

Get government's boot off business' neck and you'd be there already.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

That's my take too. Obama is running radio ads for example to encourage senior citizens to apply for food stamps. We;ve gone from around 15 mil on food stamps in 2000 to 47mil today. Do we really need that? And now, to top it off, the Dept of Agriculture is working with the MEXICAN govt to get the message to the illegal aliens coming here on how they too can apply for food stamps. Unbelievable. And you would think we have a country of starving people, but in reality we have an obesity epidemic.
The point is that even Obama has stated time and time again that there is waste in govt that can be eliminated to help reduce spending. There is absolutely no reason that can't be done regardless of doing anything with taxes. Let's say you had a family that was having financial difficulty, deep in debt, borrowing more each year. The kitchen window is open, it's 20F outside and the heat is being wasted. Would you insist that the window can only be closed if daddy gets a raise?

And compromise is what has gotten us to where we are now. The out of control spending during the Bush years was a good example. We could also raise taxes and it would not matter, they would still have a huge deficit because the govt would spend even more. Govt spending has gone from 18% of GDP in 2000 to 25% now. Back then we had a balanced budget. As recently as 2007, we had a deficit of just $161bil. Spending has gone up 40% from 2007 to 2011. Yet, we're supposed to believe that NOTHING can be cut, without a tax hike?

Yeah as if Obama is frugal and it's Congress forcing him to spend. That's a hoot. His proposed budgets would have spent EVEN MORE. His budget was so ridiculous, that even his own party chucked it on arrival. If Obama wanted to take a step at reducing the deficit all he has to do is come up with a proposal to start cutting excessive govt spending and waste. Put it forth. They call that leadership.

I pointed out that the Democrats had control of the House and Senate for the first two years and they rammed through what they wanted. When you then claim that they only had a filibuster proof Senate for part of that time, that in my book is making excuses. REagan got an economic recovery plan through Congress when the Democrats controlled the House during his entire two terms in office. He only had control of the Senate, and never a filibuster proof one either. Another difference is his plan worked.

That's pretty much it. The Republican party is one that Ronald Reagan would not only recognize, he'd embrace it, because it's values and goals are the same as his were.

Obama has been anti-business since day one. He's railed against drug companies, insurance companies, wall street, oil companies, coal companies.... He's blocked the Keystone pipeline. He rammed through Obmacare which placed new uncertainties on businesses and increased healthcare costs. He allowed the Labor Dept to block Boeing's new plant to build the 787 in SC that employes thousands and further impacts not only tens of thousands of jobs in the USA, but around the world as well.
Now, I suppose we're just supposed to cooperate with this guy and all get along. But that just isn't possible. For proof as to why, just look at what OBama just did to Netanyahu. Netanyahu was in NYC for the UN meeting. He asked to meet with Obama. Seems reasonable. After all, the mid-east is a powder keg, Iran is building a nuke, Israel is getting more nervous and threatening to act. Obama said he was just too busy. He did find time to go on Letterman, The View and meet in the oval office with a pirate. After all, it was "speak like a pirate day". You have to keep your priorities in order, right?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Seniors on Social Security rarely qualify for food stamps - that monthly payment puts them too high on the revenue ladder.

There will always be "waste." You can't build a house without making sawdust. The object is to REDUCE waste keeping in mind there is a point of diminishing returns that one might hit fairly rapidly.

Maybe a Constitutional Amendment fixing the cost of government at some percentage of GDP, except for emergencies such as war, famine, acts of God, or an attack on the distaff's "girly parts."

The Democrats also controlled Congress during the last two years of the Bush administration. As a reminder, 2007-2008 was when the country's economic system went all to hell.
Coincidence or cause-and-effect? You be the judge.

And support for Obama amongst the Jewish community has dropped a tad. As of Oct 4th, 65% of the Jews support Obama. This contrasts with the 75% support Obama received in 2008.
But do you want to see Obama's Jewish support plummet into the basement, sub-basement, center of the earth?
Consider: The Israeli Air force has but three Hercules C-130 and seven Boeing 707 refueling tankers. Now what if Israel publicly requested the "loan" of, say, twelve air-refueling tankers from the U.S.? Of course the president would decline the request. This refusal would agitate American Jews orgasmless frenzy!
Especially when Netanyahu says (parphrasing Golda Meyer): "The decision is not whether we will fight - we will. The decision is whether we fight with rocks or with every weapon we can muster."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The Dems keep insisting on tax increases on the rich. That's job killing thing to do. I'm glad the Reps are blocking tax hikes on the rich. The rich are already over taxed.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
The problem with the "my way or no way" approach being taken by both sides is you end up with "no way". We stagger along on continuing resolutions until we drop off the cliff.
-- Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.