Occupy Wall Street

[Samer]

The term "trickle down" is supposed to imply a negative, but the fact is, this is the way that businesses work. A business won't invest (more) profits in employees unless it can actually make that profit.

I'm referring to the standard definition of "trickle down" economics as it relates to individual taxes. Taxes were reduced on wealthy people and it didn't trickle down to anyone else.

So what is wrong with the top 1%, who in most cases have taken risks and worked to build a business and in turn build wealth, what is wrong with them making more money? Do you knowingly make bad investments with your money?

Nothing is wrong with making money. One of the greatest investors of all time, Warren Buffet, and a growing number of wealthy business people agree with me. They didn't ask for a Bush tax cut and they think they and people who earn as much money as they do should be paying more.


Well, just because you say it doesn't make it true either. But the fact is, Obama wants to take more of my wealth in order to redistribute it to those who are somehow more worthy.

Not more worthy, ALL progressive taxes work that way to a certain extent and most of the world works that way. Obama wants Bush tax cuts to expire on individual income that exceeds 1 million dollars.

This was the platform he ran on in 2008. So if I work hard and long hours, take huge financial risks, I am "rewarded" by Obama wanting to punish me, by taking even more of my money. Obama has pointed his figure at individuals, calling their salaries "obscene", and even suggesting specific industry taxes on indviduals.

Do you earn over 1 million dollars per year? If the answer is no, then Obama does not and will not raise your taxes. If the answer is yes, he would like your taxes to go back to the rate they were under Clinton. Thanks for your understanding.

there are certainly anti-capitalism signs all over the place.

Yes there are, and I don't agree with them. It would be a mistake to lump all of the OWS people together as people with identical political views.

So make a statement about Goldman, or some other business you don't like? Sure. But go out there and trash public lands, steal taxpayer funds for your cleanup, put some small businesses out of business, and they get zero sympathy from me.

Was Fox news complaining about these 'issues' when they were actively promoting tea party 'rallies'? Would you dismiss the Civil Rights movement because of issues such as the ones you raised? Would you rather limit freedom of speech? Be honest with yourself. That sounds like a talking point from a propaganda machine trying to marginalize a legitimate National movement. But that is just my opinion.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by almost40

Its only insulting when I say democrat majority. I guess democrat anything is now offensive. shiroganeshinobi didnt get the memo, but he better watch his step. He too might be considered rude.

I'm sorry, but I still don't get how this is offensive.

[almost40]

Originally Posted by Samer

One of the greatest investors of all time, Warren Buffet, and a growing number of wealthy business people agree with me. They didn't ask for a Bush tax cut and they think they and people who earn as much money as they do should be paying more.

And they, just like you, wont pay one penny more than they have too.
Now will they, or you, blame the democratics in the house, senate, or whitehouse who passed HR 4853??

Or is it all just a tool to bash Bush and promote class warfare??

BTW Samer I typed out a response to your question, but in the time it took to do just that, I timed out and had to sign in again. Now its lost in cyberspace. Ill try again later and type it in a format that I can save. Sorry.

[Samer]

"...I'm not going to answer any more of these types of questions..."

Originally Posted by kyrider

...You do know who John Dewey is right?

Are you kidding me?

Goodbye.

[almost40]

Originally Posted by revstriker

I'm sorry, but I still don't get how this is offensive.

Me, you, and many others
I guess john Dewey is offensive too. lol

[Samer]

Originally Posted by revstriker

It's insulting to say democratic majority?? I don't get it. This must be in some new version of the Politically Correct manual.

No it is not and I didn't say that. I really wonder if you actually read any of my posts. As a corollary, I should question my sanity when I continue to try to respond.

"Democratic Majority" is fine. In the post that I criticized, he wrote in two separate places "democrat majority" and "democrat party". That is insulting and impolite.

Easy to take a jab at political correctness. How about simple decency? I don't disrespect you so I would appreciate the same from you.

[kyrider]

O.K. I was watching NFL network what did I miss?

[revstriker]

I'm referring to the standard definition of "trickle down" economics as it relates to individual taxes. Taxes were reduced on wealthy people and it didn't trickle down to anyone else.
I would disagree that tax reductions don't benefit anyone but the company owner. But if you look at things in recent years, then yes, it is not benefiting more people because people and businesses are holding on to cash because of the uncertainty.

Nothing is wrong with making money. One of the greatest investors of all time, Warren Buffet, and a growing number of wealthy business people agree with me. They didn't ask for a Bush tax cut and they think they and people who earn as much money as they do should be paying more.

More don't agree than agree. As for Buffet, it is interesting considering the manuevers he has taken to shelter his wealth from taxes. It's also interesting how he tries to spin the taxes he is paying as income tax, and compares them to someone making less.

I've always said that if these Buffett types feel it's important for people like them to pay more, then they should. Voluntarily. He should stop sheltering his income, and stop taking deductions.

Not more worthy, ALL progressive taxes work that way to a certain extent and most of the world works that way. Obama wants Bush tax cuts to expire on individual income that exceeds 1 million dollars.

He also ran on, an wants to increase taxes on those who earn 200,000 or more. This is far less than 1 million.

There are also some countries (including Russia) who are doing very well with a flat tax. I'd love to see us move in this direction.

Do you earn over 1 million dollars per year? If the answer is no, then Obama does not and will not raise your taxes. If the answer is yes, he would like your taxes to go back to the rate they were under Clinton. Thanks for your understanding.

Except, as I stated above, he campaigned on raising taxes on those making $200K, and this is still his goal.

Yes there are, and I don't agree with them. It would be a mistake to lump all of the OWS people together as people with identical political views.

Yes, and I don't mean to do that. But there is certainly a large group of protesters who are indeed protesting against capitalism. But as I said before, this is a protest without a clear and consistent message.

Was Fox news complaining about these 'issues' when they were actively promoting tea party 'rallies'? Would you dismiss the Civil Rights movement because of issues such as the ones you raised? Would you rather limit freedom of speech? Be honest with yourself. That sounds like a talking point from a propaganda machine trying to marginalize a legitimate National movement. But that is just my opinion.

Fox News? I never said anything about Fox News, nor do I care who or what you think they support. As for the Tea Party, I am unaware of these issues with them. I do know that they were forced to apply for and pay for permits as well as police duties. Limit Freedom of Speech? How did you get that out of my comments? I don't care what they speak about, and I certainly don't want to shut anyone's speech down. I just don't want to pay for it. As for "legitimate" National Movement, well, I guess that is your opinion, and it certainly differs from mine.

[Samer]

Originally Posted by revstriker

[I]

As for "legitimate" National Movement, well, I guess that is your opinion, and it certainly differs from mine.

So the whole thing is a conspiracy? It becomes legitimate when tens (or hundreds) of thousands of Americans participate. You don't have to agree with them, but they are real people, and a significant number of people.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by Samer

No it is not and I didn't say that. I really wonder if you actually read any of my posts. As a corollary, I should question my sanity when I continue to try to respond.

"Democratic Majority" is fine. In the post that I criticized, he wrote in two separate places "democrat majority" and "democrat party". That is insulting and impolite.

Easy to take a jab at political correctness. How about simple decency? I don't disrespect you so I would appreciate the same from you.

I stated earlier that I have not read every post. I apologize if you have posted something with more detail on this that I missed.

As for Democratic versus Democrat, I still don't see how one is insulting (or impolite) and the other is not. To say "Democrat Party" may not be the correct way to say it, but I don't see how it is insulting. But I do know a lot of Democrats (correct usage) feel that way.

I think people just have too thin skins sometimes.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by Samer

So the whole thing is a conspiracy? It becomes legitimate when tens (or hundreds) of thousands of Americans participate. You don't have to agree with them, but they are real people, and a significant number of people.

Conspiracy? No. But I guess it depends how you define legitimate. A protest without a consistent message, or a consistent purpose does not ring as legitimate to me.

[kyrider]

Originally Posted by Samer

"...I'm not going to answer any more of these types of questions..."



Are you kidding me?

Goodbye.

Samer,

Is this like a Goodbye like "I will see you tomorrow" or like a "Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out" Goodbye?


I think after enough time getting to know each other we could have had quite the colloquy.

[kyrider]

Who's side are you going to be on?

Link to original page on YouTube.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by almost40

Try HR 4853 as mentioned.
Intoduced on 3/15/10
passesd the house 3/17/10
passed the senate on 9/22/10
signed by obama on 12/16/10

Introduced and passed by both the House and Senate before the midterm election (democrat majority)

Its major purpose was to extend the Bush tax cuts and unemployment insurance.
Brought to you by the democrat party who had control of all 3 branches of Government at the time it cleared the house and the senate.

Now why would the democrats vote this way???
Because they have no interest in raising taxes on the rich. They like the money pouring into the campaign offices just as much as the republicans.

Its all a smoke screen to promote class warfare and garner votes.
Is it that hard to see???? They say one thing, and do another.
Its pretty obvious if you read the bills and ignore the proposals that are nothing more than grandstanding. Of course thats what makes headlines. Grandstanding.

I would like to correct something here.......
People remember the result but never the fight to get there.
In reality its more like people remember the soundbites and not the way there party voted in the house and senate to create law.

Btw I did post my sources
OBRA-93
H.R. 4853

• There <> Their
• Its <> It's
• Sentences never, ever, ever require more than one question mark
• You've completely missed the point, yet again

This was just one more false crisis to extract a compromise, threatening both the extension of the AMT fix and the withholding of unemployment benefits as of the start of the new year, unless their erstwhile colleagues caved on extending the Bush "temporary" tax cuts (and lowering the estate tax). Neither party had enough votes to overcome the threatened filibuster, so it was yet one more grandstanding gesture to harm the majority if the minority didn't get their way. You positing that it was now a bill developed and supported by the Democratic party is neither a surprise, nor does it ring true.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by almost40

It only makes sense that if you have bad or no credit you will pay more in interest than a more credit worthy borrower.

Agreed, but that wasn't necessarily what Samer was referring to. One problem was subprimes being pushed to people who shouldn't have even been eligible for those. But another problem was a number of banks being caught directing people into subprime loans at higher rates when they should have qualified for non subprime rates.

Here's the settlement from Wells not so long ago that details both problems:

Wells Fargo Fined $85 Million Over Subprime Lending

The Fed alleged that Wells Fargo inflated borrowers' incomes on loan documents to qualify for mortgages they otherwise couldn't afford from 2004 until 2008. Wells Fargo sales personnel also pushed borrowers toward higher-interest, subprime loans, even though they were eligible for lower-interest mortgages, the central bank said.

[almost40]

Originally Posted by Samer

Obama wants Bush tax cuts to expire on individual income that exceeds 1 million dollars.


Do you earn over 1 million dollars per year? If the answer is no, then Obama does not and will not raise your taxes. If the answer is yes, he would like your taxes to go back to the rate they were under Clinton. Thanks for your understanding.

Ahh yes.......... that fictional tax bracket that you still seem to think exists.

[Samer]

Originally Posted by almost40

Ahh yes.......... that fictional tax bracket that you still seem to think exists.

So you earn more than 200 thousand a year, or if you are married, you earn more than 250K per year? Somehow I doubt it.

I'm willing to bet you're like Joe the plumber. He was whining to Obama that his plumbing business was set to make around 200K that year. Which, by the way, would not have made his taxes go up under Obama's plan. It turned out that Joe the plumber wasn't really a plumber, did not earn anywhere near 200k, and had liens on his property for not paying taxes.

I am talking about actual Bills that were proposed in Congress recently that were struck down by the extreme right wing. The 1 million bracket has been proposed in This Congress in the real world. That is what I am referring to.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by Samer

So you earn more than 200 thousand a year, or if you are married, you earn more than 250K per year? Somehow I doubt it.

What difference does it make if he is in that tax bracket or not? Are you saying that anyone who makes $200k a year is rich, and should pay even more in taxes? Are you suggesting that only people who are in that tax bracket should be allowed to argue against those higher taxes? Are you aware that sole proprietor businesses can be very small and still make more than $200k a year? And that these businesses also employ others, where a tax increase on them would almost certainly affect those making much less than $200k?

He was whining to Obama that his plumbing business was set to make around 200K that year. Which, by the way, would not have made his taxes go up under Obama's plan. It turned out that Joe the plumber wasn't really a plumber, did not earn anywhere near 200k, and had leans on his property for not paying taxes.

Actually, the question that was asked of Obama by Joe the Plumber was based on him buying a business that made more than $200k (The business in question actually made more than $500k). He did not claim that he already owned such a business. But the question was legitimate and outlined Obama's intent to actually punish those who are successful. It was also the question which sparked the quote from Obama, that I'm sure he wishes he could take back, where he said as part of his answer: "I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody".

The question was a legitimate question to Obama. Whether or not he actually intended on buying such a business, or whether or not someone is in the highest tax bracket, it doesn't change the issue.

[Samer]

When u r a business, that is different than an individual. If the profit of the business is above 200k and u choose to pay it to yourself, then the plan would have raised taxes on the portion above 200k. On the other hand, Obama has proposed cutting taxes on small businesses that hire new workers.

[almost40]

Originally Posted by Samer

So you earn more than 200 thousand a year, or if you are married, you earn more than 250K per year? Somehow I doubt it.

I try not to brag about what I do or how much I make.
Its been posted on this site before and if you care to look you will find out what I do and how much I make.....But somehow I fail to see the relavance.

I guess its a little hard for me to understand how obama wants to let the "Bush tax cuts to expire on individual income that exceeds 1 million dollars" when there has never been such a tax bracket. Please show me where I can find that information. (Good luck)

Originally Posted by Samer

I am talking about actual Bills that were proposed in Congress recently that were struck down by the extreme right wing. The 1 million bracket has been proposed in This Congress in the real world. That is what I am referring to.

Well how about that....and it was also proposed in H.R. 25 (ih) To promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service,
Or how about
H.R. 156 (ih) To prevent Members of Congress from receiving any automatic pay adjustment in 2010.
maybe this one.....H.R. 172 (ih) To provide for the construction of the Arkansas Valley Conduit in the State of Colorado.
How about this Zinger.....H.R. 6564 (ih) To promote the oil independence of the United States, and for other purposes.

Now would it suprise you that there were over 6500 "actual bills" proposed in the 111th congress in just 2 years?? Yep thats nearly 9 a day. and since congress doesnt work every day. (hell they arent even in session 200 days a year) theres a whopping 15-35 bills introduced every time congress is in session.

This is why I dont talk about "proposed bills" 98% of them get no traction and are merely grandstanding for the constituents.
Like yourself.

Wake up samer.

How about giving me the numbers so I can look this proposed bill up. its H.R. something if it was introduced in congress.
Be advised they are at about 3000 now.

Btw,,, extreme right wing is offensive to me. LOL

[almost40]

Originally Posted by Alex

This was just one more false crisis to extract a compromise, threatening both the extension of the AMT fix and the withholding of unemployment benefits as of the start of the new year, unless their erstwhile colleagues caved on extending the Bush "temporary" tax cuts (and lowering the estate tax). Neither party had enough votes to overcome the threatened filibuster, so it was yet one more grandstanding gesture to harm the majority if the minority didn't get their way. You positing that it was now a bill developed and supported by the Democratic party is neither a surprise, nor does it ring true.

Well let me help ya out on this one Alex. I think you might be thinking of another bill or something.
The bills sponsor was James Oberstar. (Yeah hes a democrat)
Cosponsors were
David Camp [R]
Jerry Costello [D]
Sander Levin [D]
John Mica [R]
Thomas Petri [R]
there were 59 amendments and 45 of them were added by..........you guessed it Democrats
Along with 3 from the socialist Bernie Sanders from VT

It was such a great Idea that the republicans only added 11 amendments.

Add to that the fact that it passed with a roll call vote in congress. It got Unanimous Consent in the senate. A vote in the house to agree with the senate changes passed by roll call vote. It was 234 yes (or ayes), 188 no (or nays) 12 Present. Then the senate passed it by roll call 81 Yes, 19 No. After they agreed with the house changes. Thats right 43 democrats voted for this bill in the senate and the final house vote was 277-148 with 139 democrats voting yes.

Now I dont know about you. But 81 to 19 doesnt seem like it was under the threat of fillibuster. Besides at the time this vote was taken they did indeed have a filibuster proof majority of 58 seats plus the 2 independants plus Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe who were republicans in name only and voted with the democrats if you dont recall. Thats 62 votes and I have pointed all this out to you before. It went unchallenged then as it will go now because it is indeed a fact.

Please tell me where Im wrong here. All of the above is a fact and a matter of public record.

Is it that hard to accept the fact that the democrats voted for the Bush tax cuts? The same tax cuts that they now oppose?? Is it possible that I might be right when I say that they dont really want to raise taxes on the rich??
Its all just a soundbite, to promote class warfare and hopefully (for the democrats) get obama re-elected.

[Samer]

I know there is no tax bracket for earnings beyond 1 million. Show me where I said there is one. I was talking about what Democrats are trying to do now. Many people, including myself, Warren Buffet, and many Democrats in Congress strongly support letting the Bush tax cuts expire on these earnings. In fact, you even seemed to indicate you support it!

So if this went to a vote By Itself with no toxic crap tied to it, it probably has a good chance of passing Despite the tea party House Republicans extreme pledge.

[almost40]

Originally Posted by Samer

I know there is no tax bracket for earnings beyond 1 million. Show me where I said there is one. I was talking about what Democrats are trying to do now. owever, many people, including myself, Warren Buffet, and many Democrats in Congress strongly support letting the Bush tax cuts expire on these earnings. In fact, you even seemed to indicate you support it!

So if this went to a vote By Itself with no toxic crap tied to it, it probably has a good chance of passing Despite the tea party House Republicans extreme pledge.

sorry didnt mean to quote the whole thing.

But Ya did it again. there is no tax cut to expire on earnings over a million dollars. That bracket does not exist.
It would have to be a vote to create a new tax bracket and tax the earnings of anyone that makes over a million at a certin percentage. If you make 375k to one million you pay X% and if you make a million and one dollar and up you pay Y% so thats 2 new tax brackets.
It will never happen because neither party is interested in cutting their own throat.
They love that cash they get in there campaign coffers from the millionaires........ Dont you get it yet?
Besides we dont have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.
Try focusing on that, instead of the class warfare deal. Point out the frivolus spending of speaker boner and the republicans and Ill happily join you in bashing it. Acknowledge the fact that the democrats are just as much to blame as the republicans for the spending mess, and we might just get somwhere.
Cant you see we have common ground as citzens of this great nation. Both parties are guilty of spending us into oblivion.
Lets stop the class warfare routine that has been burnt into your brain by NPR... it solves nothing.
We as a country are now 15 trillion in the hole. Squeesing another 5 or 6 billion out of the rich (if thats even possible) wont help a darn thing until our elected leaders stop spending our money in the most asinine ways. Did you know that if you confiscated all the wealth from the people making over a million dollars we still couldnt pay off the debt. Your a math guy you know full well how much 15 trillion is. Think about it.

[Samer]

How many times do I have to say it? I am precisely talking about a new law that would specifically create a new bracket at 1 million. You say it is not going to happen. I hope it will. Time will tell. I know for a fact that many Democrats in Congress genuinely want that to happen. Don't assume everyone in Congress is a liar, on either side.

Now, you pride yourself for not being fooled by either party's rhetoric. At the same time you just quoted a tired Republican line: 'We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem'. Unfortunately, that is completely inaccurate. You whine about so many people who don't pay taxes. The truth is that if we cut spending down to almost zero, the economy would surely collapse. And any money we could conceivably collect from those low income people would be negligible.

Most economists agree with me that there are two ways to reduce the debt. We grow our way out or we print a lot of money. Since I don't think we want hyper inflation, there is only one practical way. So the question is, how do we grow faster? You say, stop spending. I agree 100% about wasteful pork such as building airplanes that the Air Force didn't ask for and doesn't need b/c some Congress person wants to take credit for keeping some (unneeded) jobs paid for by you and me. Can we agree on that?

But the general idea of spending less as the primary solution, I don't agree with. Look at the stimulus. Sure, the Republicans say it failed yet we are on a long streak of private sector job growth and the economy is growing. Compare to the 750,000 jobs lost per month that Obama inherited thanks mostly to the tax cutting and deregulating, let the private sector control everything Bush philosophy.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by Samer

When u r a business, that is different than an individual. If the profit of the business is above 200k and u choose to pay it to yourself, then the plan would have raised taxes on the portion above 200k. On the other hand, Obama has proposed cutting taxes on small businesses that hire new workers.

When you are a sole proprietor, there is no "paying yourself". You (your business) are taxed as an individual. If your business has net income of over $200k, then this money would be taxed at a higher rate under what Obama has proposed. Doesn't matter if you used this money to buy yourself a new car, or you used the money to invest in the business.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by Samer

How many times do I have to say it? I am precisely talking about a new law that would specifically create a new bracket at 1 million.

The key word there is "new". This is not letting the same as letting the Bush tax cuts expire because the Bush Tax Cuts did not single out $1 Million as any kind of a threshold. The reason why this is even used by democrats to try and push their "new" tax, is because it makes it sound like Bush had created a tax break that benefited millionaires while ignoring others. This is absolutely not true.

At the same time you just quoted a tired Republican line: 'We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem'. Unfortunately, that is completely inaccurate.

You've got to be either kidding, or very uninformed. Spending under Obama has gone up something like 84%. Revenue (tax dollars) are down because the economy is down.

So if you were to get a pay cut at work, would you react by spending 84% more money?

Most economists agree with me that there are two ways to reduce the debt. We grow our way out or we print a lot of money.

And your sure that reductions in spending are not part of any equation?

Look at the stimulus. Sure, the Republicans say it failed yet we are on a long streak of private sector job growth and the economy is growing. Compare to the 750,000 jobs lost per month that Obama inherited thanks mostly to the tax cutting and deregulating, let the private sector control everything Bush philosophy.

I'd love for you to outline exactly how the government stimulus created jobs. You should also do the simple math on how much each of these jobs cost the government. And cutting taxes led to jobs being lost? I'd love to see the data on that.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by almost40

Please tell me where Im wrong here. All of the above is a fact and a matter of public record.

Is it that hard to accept the fact that the democrats voted for the Bush tax cuts? The same tax cuts that they now oppose??

You're wrong a million different ways, but I'll just point out the most obvious. First, the entire bill was laid out exactly as I stated. It was a trade for unemployment benefits extension + AMT fix, for the continuation of the Bush tax cuts. No more complex, no more simple.

Link 1:

Full Tax Cuts Extension Traded for Unemployment Extension
In order to get unemployment benefits extended for 2 million workers who had already or were about to lose their benefits by the end of the year, Obama explained he had to offer the Republicans a trade of a Bush tax cuts extension that affected all Americans, not just the middle class as he originally proposed in his campaign.

Democrats Not Happy with Proposal
While much of Congress will soon be influenced by Republicans–who seem to be mostly in favor of the proposal–the House of Representatives is still heavily influenced by Democrats who would likely decide whether Obama’s proposal will see the light of day.
Some already assume a revolt by liberal Democrats is likely, especially because the proposal also increases the federal debt. However, the president has pleaded with both parties to think of the needs of the American people and allow the proposal to pass and instead of continuing a needless political fight over compromise.

Link 2: I assume I don't have to bold or capitalize the filibuster part below, right?

The House passed a bill reflecting Mr. Obama’s call for the cuts to be extended only on income below $250,000 per household. But Democrats failed to break a Republican filibuster in the Senate on that approach, or an alternative “millionaire’s tax.’'

Two days later, Mr. Obama announced that he had reached a deal with Republicans that extended the cuts at all income levels through the end of 2012 as part of a package that would also keep benefits flowing to the long-term unemployed, cut payroll taxes for all workers for a year and take other steps to bolster the economy. It also continued tax breaks on dividends and capital gains, and lowered the estate tax.

Link 3:

Republicans have sought to extend the Bush tax cuts to all income levels and have threatened to block virtually every piece of legislation in the Senate until they get their way.

Senate Democrats have favored eliminating the tax cuts for the wealthy, saying they could add $700 billion to the federal deficit over 10 years. One of their priorities has been to extend unemployment benefits.

The standoff came to a head Saturday when Democrats, facing unified Republican opposition, were unable to remove the tax cuts for families making more than $250,000 a year. They also failed in a second effort to eliminate the cuts for families making $1 million a year.

Link 4:

The way forward looks to be a deal tying unemployment insurance to a compromise over the Bush tax cuts. Following a closed door meeting with Republicans Congressional leaders on Tuesday, President Obama tapped a team to work on a deal. The group, which apparently includes the Treasury Secretary, the White House budget director and a two members of Congress from each party, will be tasked with coming to an agreement about the controversial Bush-era tax cuts. The most likely scenario, reports the Huffington Post’s Arthur Delaney, is that the deal includes a temporary extension of some of the cuts (in question are cuts for families making over $250,000 a year) coupled with other issues, which the president suggested could include unemployment insurance.

So why again would there be all this concern about opposition if they truly had the votes to break a filibuster? Oh wait, could you have gotten your "facts" wrong yet again?

Originally Posted by almost40

Besides at the time this vote was taken they did indeed have a filibuster proof majority of 58 seats plus the 2 independants plus Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe who were republicans in name only and voted with the democrats if you dont recall. Thats 62 votes and I have pointed all this out to you before. It went unchallenged then as it will go now because it is indeed a fact.

Except that as of November 29, 2010, before this vote was taken, The Democratic party had 56 seats in the Senate. 2 "independants" [sic]. And 42 Republicans. Conveniently enough to block just about anything and everything, including any thought of not extending those cuts.

Here's my reference. So either post up yours, or admit that once again your "facts" have turned out to be, well, not an appropriate use of the term.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by revstriker

You've got to be either kidding, or very uninformed. Spending under Obama has gone up something like 84%.

Sorry, but you need to be more precise than that before calling anyone else uninformed. Spending is up, but find and post any stats that peg it at 84% above anything.

The Brookings Institute has a page that formats receipts/outlays by year, in either constant dollars or current dollars; have at it. The TreasuryDirect site has a good app to determine the overall deficit at any point in time: link, which is another way to calculate yearly spending (including interest on the debt). Finally, the wiki page on the US government budget isn't half bad either: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...federal_budget

Last Bush budget submitted in in 2008 for 2009 was $3.1 trillion. Latest Obama budget submitted in 2011 for 2012 was $3.7 trillion. The latest deal has that down to $3.5 trillion.

No matter how I divide those numbers every which way, nothing comes anywhere close to spending being up 84%. Where are you seeing that?

Wait, found it. This is Rep. Ryan lying through his teeth with that 84% number. Check the data: It's easy to see he's full of it. Here's how he did the math.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by almost40

But Ya did it again. there is no tax cut to expire on earnings over a million dollars. That bracket does not exist.

And nobody is pointing to an existing one, yet you continue to argue as if someone has.

Originally Posted by Samer

How many times do I have to say it? I am precisely talking about a new law that would specifically create a new bracket at 1 million.

If you want it to sink in, it apparently has to be many, many, times.

Originally Posted by almost40

BTW please Alex do post the number for the fictional bill he is quoting if you know it.

This was the proposal.

Nov. 29 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Senate Democrats are planning to force a vote as early as this week on pairing a 3.25 percent surtax on income over $1 million with an extension and expansion of an expiring payroll tax cut.

The first vote on the $265 billion proposal will test Democrats’ resolve to implement the largest part of President Barack Obama’s jobs plan and Republicans’ willingness to block that effort.

Senate leaders from both parties signaled yesterday that the first attempt at passage would likely fail. Democrats accused Republicans of trying to harm the economy to improve their political prospects in the 2012 elections and said they would hold repeated votes to make their point.

The proposed surtax had 3 separate votes over time, first 5.6%, then 3.25%, then 1.9%, but none of them made it into the final deal signed this week.

[kyrider]

Alex,

It is Christmas.

http://pattyinglishms.hubpages.com/h...-in-a-War-Zone

[Alex]

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by Alex

Sorry, but you need to be more precise than that before calling anyone else uninformed. Spending is up, but find and post any stats that peg it at 84% above anything.

The point was that the poster disagreed that there is a spending problem. Spending is up under Obama. Revenues are down. That means that deficit spending is way up. This is a problem. You can't keep spending more money than you take in.

The other thing I will point out is that you can't judge Obama's policies on spending by just looking at current spending. You have to look at how these policies will affect future spending. Not talking about future deficits, as this is completely depended on his policies improving the economy (which they have not yet) and revenue increasing.

Last Bush budget submitted in in 2008 for 2009 was $3.1 trillion. Latest Obama budget submitted in 2011 for 2012 was $3.7 trillion.

There's a difference between a budget submitted, and what actually gets spent. Remember Obama's Omnibus Spending Bill? That was added on top of the budget. So was his stimulus money.

No matter how I divide those numbers every which way, nothing comes anywhere close to spending being up 84%. Where are you seeing that?

Wait, found it. This is Rep. Ryan lying through his teeth with that 84% number.

You may not agree with it, but it certainly is no lie. Your link tries to make two points to counter Ryan's claim. First it tries to claim that Obama's Stimulus spending is not part of normal spending and should not be counted. And then it criticizes Ryan for counting the spending when the spending actually happened vs when the bill was approved and the spending authorized. To me, these differences are meaningless. Obama still is spending the money (like his smart investment in Solyndra), and it has had little if any impact on the economy.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by Alex

And nobody is pointing to an existing one, yet you continue to argue as if someone has.

The fictional "1 million dollar tax bracket" has been talked about as part of the Bush Tax Cut. This is how democrats in Congress as well as the Obama Administration like to spin it (as well as at least one poster in this thread). They proposed to let the Bush Tax Cuts expire on those making $1 million or more. But there is no Bush Tax Cut focused on those making this amount of money because the tax bracket does not exist. But this sounds a lot nicer than proposing a tax increase.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by revstriker

The point was that the poster disagreed that there is a spending problem. Spending is up under Obama. Revenues are down. That means that deficit spending is way up. This is a problem. You can't keep spending more money than you take in.

I don't know what his point was, but my point was you listed a false and inflated number to describe a spending increase, and I pointed it out.

Originally Posted by revstriker

The other thing I will point out is that you can't judge Obama's policies on spending by just looking at current spending. You have to look at how these policies will affect future spending.

OK - but then lumping in what has actually happened, what is expected to happen based on approved spend, and what is proposed to potentially happen, as one big pile of "Obama's spending too much!", is so simplistic to be simply wrong.

Originally Posted by revstriker

There's a difference between a budget submitted, and what actually gets spent.

OK again, but then review the actuals, and point out the large increases you speak of. It's very easy to show what "actually gets spent".

Originally Posted by revstriker

You may not agree with it, but it certainly is no lie. Your link tries to make two points to counter Ryan's claim. First it tries to claim that Obama's Stimulus spending is not part of normal spending and should not be counted. And then it criticizes Ryan for counting the spending when the spending actually happened vs when the bill was approved and the spending authorized. To me, these differences are meaningless. Obama still is spending the money (like his smart investment in Solyndra), and it has had little if any impact on the economy.

So - you believe spending is up 84%? Point to the before and after, and show how that math works. Multiply what it was by 1.84 and that should equal what it is now, right? Or even was then?

(Hint: "Paul Ryan says U.S. discretionary spending increased 84 percent in the last two years" Politifact rating: Mostly False)

[Alex]

Originally Posted by revstriker

The fictional "1 million dollar tax bracket" has been talked about as part of the Bush Tax Cut. This is how democrats in Congress as well as the Obama Administration like to spin it (as well as at least one poster in this thread). They proposed to let the Bush Tax Cuts expire on those making $1 million or more. But there is no Bush Tax Cut focused on those making this amount of money because the tax bracket does not exist. But this sounds a lot nicer than proposing a tax increase.

Debating the existence or non-existence of a $1M tax bracket is beneath you. There were attempts this year and last to allow the Bush "temporary" tax cuts to expire on a subset of taxpayers. One of them was at the $250,000 level. It didn't go forward. Another was at the $1M level. It didn't go forward either. Saying that it couldn't have happened because there isn't a current $1M bracket in the tax code is completely beside the point, and irrelevant to the conversation.

It's all here.

End of 2010:

The House passed a bill reflecting Mr. Obama’s call for the cuts to be extended only on income below $250,000 per household. But Democrats failed to break a Republican filibuster in the Senate on that approach, or an alternative “millionaire’s tax.’'

September 2011:

The issue returned in the fall of 2011. In September, Mr. Obama again proposed ending the tax breaks for income above $250,000 per household as part of a $3 trillion deficit reduction plan. Mr. Obama also proposed limiting the value of deductions taken by high earners and closing corporate loopholes to raise a total of $1.5 trillion in new tax revenues over a decade, steps rejected by Republicans

November 2011:

Senate Democrats offered to extend the tax cuts for income up to $1 million, not Mr. Obama’s proposal of $250,000 per couple limit. They planned to stage votes to force Republicans to go on record supporting the high-end tax cuts and to use the outcome to cast Republicans as putting the interests of millionaires ahead of other priorities, like reducing the deficit and providing additional benefits to the unemployed.

The House passed Mr. Obama’s preferred tax plan. But after Republicans in the Senate used the filibuster to block it and the “millionaire’' alternative, senior Democrats were resigned to defeat in the highly charged tax debate.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by Alex

So - you believe spending is up 84%? Point to the before and after, and show how that math works. Multiply what it was by 1.84 and that should equal what it is now, right? Or even was then?

(Hint: "Paul Ryan says U.S. discretionary spending increased 84 percent in the last two years" Politifact rating: Mostly False)

I have checked out the Data behind the statement that Paul Ryan made and it does indeed show an 84% increase in discretionary spending. So yes, that is not a lie. The reasons why Politifact (which has shown to have an anti GOP bias in the past) have labeled it as they have is based on Ryan including stimulus money in his spending, and then counting the money in the year it was spent. Either way, the money is being spent by the Obama Administration.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by Alex

Debating the existence or non-existence of a $1M tax bracket is beneath you. There were attempts this year and last to allow the Bush "temporary" tax cuts to expire on a subset of taxpayers. One of them was at the $250,000 level. It didn't go forward. Another was at the $1M level. It didn't go forward either. Saying that it couldn't have happened because there isn't a current $1M bracket in the tax code is completely beside the point, and irrelevant to the conversation.

As I said in my last post, this additional tax, creating new tax brackets has nothing to do with the Bush Tax Cuts. It has to do with democrats wanting to raise taxes on millionaires, but try to hide their tax increase by calling it an expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts. It helps them advance their false claim that the Bush Tax cuts only benefited the rich.

I never said that a tax raise on those making any level of income could never happen. I just stated that it would have nothing to do with the Bush Tax Cuts.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by revstriker

I have checked out the Data behind the statement that Paul Ryan made and it does indeed show an 84% increase in discretionary spending. So yes, that is not a lie. The reasons why Politifact (which has shown to have an anti GOP bias in the past) have labeled it as they have is based on Ryan including stimulus money in his spending, and then counting the money in the year it was spent. Either way, the money is being spent by the Obama Administration.

Show the math, or admit that the 84% was a lie. Ryan's office backed off it, why haven't you? You've dodged twice already. The article in fact recommends that the stimulus money *should* be counted, and still shows how the 84% isn't accurate.

How about this - I'll post the data right here, and you can point to the part that you believe represents an 84% increase that you agree with:

Originally Posted by The Journal Sentinel

That’s when the vote occurred, when the spending authority for nearly all of it was granted, and that’s how the Congressional Budget Office records it. And Ryan’s own press release, in the fine print, refers to the stimulus funds as 2009 spending.

Putting them in 2010 may make a stronger rhetorical point, but a shaky mathematical one.

Why did Ryan do it that way?

In response, Ryan’s office said in an e-mail he presents the budget figure on the chart with and without stimulus funding "so readers can separate the two if they wish."

But in his public statements about the increase, he doesn’t separate them at all. He uses the higher, skewed number.

Originally Posted by revstriker

I never said that a tax raise on those making any level of income could never happen. I just stated that it would have nothing to do with the Bush Tax Cuts.

So - letting the Bush "temporary" tax cuts expire on some (> certain income), and not letting the Bush "temporary" tax cuts expire on others (< certain income) has nothing to do with the expiration of the Bush "temporary" tax cuts?

[almost40]

Originally Posted by Alex

Except that as of November 29, 2010, before this vote was taken, The Democratic party had 56 seats in the Senate. 2 "independants" [sic]. And 42 Republicans. Conveniently enough to block just about anything and everything, including any thought of not extending those cuts.

So either post up yours, or admit that once again your "facts" have turned out to be, well, not an appropriate use of the term.

And you didnt bother, or dont know how to look up the true facts.
The final senate voice vote was held on Dec 15th 2010 when the democrats had 58 seats. plus the 2 independants and the 2 RINO's
So my facts do indeed get to be called facts.

And none of the talk of filibuster really matters because the vote was 81-19. with 43 democrats in the senate and 139 in the house voting for the tax cuts.

Post all the articles you can find. None of them explain away the voting record. Although they try really really hard.

[almost40]

Alex, Your not really trying to say spending isnt higher are you?? Havent we had this debate before?? I can go get numbers from your credible source. (the place you have quoted numbers from) to prove it if you would like me too.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov

Grab some numbers from here revstriker.