Certain Repubs Want to Cave to Dems

As President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) continue to do battle over a fiscal cliff deal, another Ohio legislator, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), soundly rejected the idea that Republicans are truly concerned with saving public programs like Social Security and Medicare.

‎"There has been a movement among conservative Republicans of a bit of a distaste for Social Security and Medicare. They’re public programs that are successful, and if it’s proven that these public programs are successful, it sort of undercuts their view that government can’t do anything right. Government has never been late on a social security check in 75 years since its first payment in 1940. We have seen two very successful public programs and there are always efforts to shift costs."

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/ ... ment-cuts/

LadyJazzer wrote: Obama compromised to extend them in order to ensure that the teabaggers wouldn't screw the middle-class. Now, why don't you use the ol' "Obama had a veto-proof majority for two years"...That's about as relevant...)

You didn't answer any of my questions. Therefore, I'm under no obligation to answer yours. Why is it so wrong that the top 2%, who have raked in 93% of the wealth created since Bush's unpaid-for tax-cuts, should pay the extra 4.6% on the amount OVER $250K, and pay their fair share...(which is what they were paying during the Clinton-era, when 23.1 million jobs were created?) (Interesting how 81% of the American people say that they believe the top 2% should see their personal rates go up...)

The "2%" number comes from the GAO estimate of the number of people making over-$250,000... The law doesn't say "Gee, let's raise the tax rates on 2% instead of 1%"...It says, "..on those making over $250,000, on THE AMOUNT over $250,000"... If that works out to be 2% instead of 1%, then I guess they must have more precise data now. But you knew that.

You are correct Obama having a super majority is irrelevant in this conversation.

At first it was those millionaires need to be taxed now it is those that make over 250K. The bar is being lowered and you don't even see it happening. Once all of that money is spent then it will be down to those that make 100K a year and so on until we all live like we are in a 3rd world country.

It really doesn't matter to me if some one made a 10K or 1.5 million during the prosperous years during Clinton's watch. Chances are that they had the education and put the time required to make that money. I am quite happy knowing that the sky is the limit for my earnings if I choose to go out and do the necessary work required to earn it. You do realize that when a top earner pays several million in taxes that is probably more than you are going to make in a life time let alone come close to paying it in taxes. Why are you so envious of someone who has the skills an knowledge to do so.
Instead of hating them why don't you learn from them to make your own cash?

The only way we are ever going to be equal is when we are all equally poor.

gmule wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: Obama compromised to extend them in order to ensure that the teabaggers wouldn't screw the middle-class. Now, why don't you use the ol' "Obama had a veto-proof majority for two years"...That's about as relevant...)

You didn't answer any of my questions. Therefore, I'm under no obligation to answer yours. Why is it so wrong that the top 2%, who have raked in 93% of the wealth created since Bush's unpaid-for tax-cuts, should pay the extra 4.6% on the amount OVER $250K, and pay their fair share...(which is what they were paying during the Clinton-era, when 23.1 million jobs were created?) (Interesting how 81% of the American people say that they believe the top 2% should see their personal rates go up...)

The "2%" number comes from the GAO estimate of the number of people making over-$250,000... The law doesn't say "Gee, let's raise the tax rates on 2% instead of 1%"...It says, "..on those making over $250,000, on THE AMOUNT over $250,000"... If that works out to be 2% instead of 1%, then I guess they must have more precise data now. But you knew that.

You are correct Obama having a super majority is irrelevant in this conversation.

At first it was those millionaires need to be taxed now it is those that make over 250K. The bar is being lowered and you don't even see it happening. Once all of that money is spent then it will be down to those that make 100K a year and so on until we all live like we are in a 3rd world country.

It really doesn't matter to me if some one made a 10K or 1.5 million during the prosperous years during Clinton's watch. Chances are that they had the education and put the time required to make that money. I am quite happy knowing that the sky is the limit for my earnings if I choose to go out and do the necessary work required to earn it. You do realize that when a top earner pays several million in taxes that is probably more than you are going to make in a life time let alone come close to paying it in taxes. Why are you so envious of someone who has the skills an knowledge to do so.
Instead of hating them why don't you learn from them to make your own cash?

The only way we are ever going to be equal is when we are all equally poor.

The only one that floated a limit of $1-million was Gov Etch-a-Sketch/Mitt-Flop/RMoney... Obama has held steady at $250,000. Nice try...but no cigar.

My limit is the same as yours--anything I feel motivated to go do. Unless you make more than $250,000/year, then none of this applies to you, and you have my permission to shut-the-hell up. I'm not "envious" of anybody. I am, however, more than willing to see the people who have pocketed 93% of the gains since 2000 pay the rate they were paying during the Clinton era. Why is it so wrong that the top 2%, who have raked in 93% of the wealth created since Bush's unpaid-for tax-cuts, should pay the extra 4.6% on the amount OVER $250K, and pay their fair share...(which is what they were paying during the Clinton-era, when 23.1 million jobs were created?) (Interesting how 81% of the American people say that they believe the top 2% should see their personal rates go up...)

Spare me your empty class-warfare bullsh*t.

LadyJazzer wrote:

gmule wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: Obama compromised to extend them in order to ensure that the teabaggers wouldn't screw the middle-class. Now, why don't you use the ol' "Obama had a veto-proof majority for two years"...That's about as relevant...)

You didn't answer any of my questions. Therefore, I'm under no obligation to answer yours. Why is it so wrong that the top 2%, who have raked in 93% of the wealth created since Bush's unpaid-for tax-cuts, should pay the extra 4.6% on the amount OVER $250K, and pay their fair share...(which is what they were paying during the Clinton-era, when 23.1 million jobs were created?) (Interesting how 81% of the American people say that they believe the top 2% should see their personal rates go up...)

The "2%" number comes from the GAO estimate of the number of people making over-$250,000... The law doesn't say "Gee, let's raise the tax rates on 2% instead of 1%"...It says, "..on those making over $250,000, on THE AMOUNT over $250,000"... If that works out to be 2% instead of 1%, then I guess they must have more precise data now. But you knew that.

You are correct Obama having a super majority is irrelevant in this conversation.

At first it was those millionaires need to be taxed now it is those that make over 250K. The bar is being lowered and you don't even see it happening. Once all of that money is spent then it will be down to those that make 100K a year and so on until we all live like we are in a 3rd world country.

It really doesn't matter to me if some one made a 10K or 1.5 million during the prosperous years during Clinton's watch. Chances are that they had the education and put the time required to make that money. I am quite happy knowing that the sky is the limit for my earnings if I choose to go out and do the necessary work required to earn it. You do realize that when a top earner pays several million in taxes that is probably more than you are going to make in a life time let alone come close to paying it in taxes. Why are you so envious of someone who has the skills an knowledge to do so.
Instead of hating them why don't you learn from them to make your own cash?

The only way we are ever going to be equal is when we are all equally poor.

The only one that floated a limit of $1-million was Gov Etch-a-Sketch/Mitt-Flop/RMoney... Obama has held steady at $250,000. Nice try...but no cigar.

My limit is the same as yours--anything I feel motivated to go do. Unless you make more than $250,000/year, then none of this applies to you, and you have my permission to shut-the-hell up. I'm not "envious" of anybody. I am, however, more than willing to see the people who have pocketed 93% of the gains since 2000 pay the rate they were paying during the Clinton era. Why is it so wrong that the top 2%, who have raked in 93% of the wealth created since Bush's unpaid-for tax-cuts, should pay the extra 4.6% on the amount OVER $250K, and pay their fair share...(which is what they were paying during the Clinton-era, when 23.1 million jobs were created?) (Interesting how 81% of the American people say that they believe the top 2% should see their personal rates go up...)

Spare me your empty class-warfare bullsh*t.

I think it is interesting that you would take such an adversarial position for some one that is not envious of those that have done better than you. I can see that you are a bitter person.

I am, however, more than willing to see the people who have pocketed 93% of the gains since 2000 pay the rate they were paying during the Clinton era. Why is it so wrong that the top 2%, who have raked in 93% of the wealth created since Bush's unpaid-for tax-cuts, should pay the extra 4.6% on the amount OVER $250K, and pay their fair share.

I already told you that I don't care that people made a ton of money during the Clinton years that is irrelevant in this discussion yet you feel compelled to repeat the same statements over and over. What I find fascinating about you is that your candidate won the election, he is pushing an agenda that you totally 100% agree with but yet you are still angry at the world. Is it that you also wish to control other people and they will not conform to what you want them to? Or is it that you are hiding behind the anonymity of the internet and think that because you feel secure hiding behind your screen and keyboard that you can say or do things that you would not normally do in public?

Why are you so bitter?

I think it's interesting that all you do is deflect and refuse to answer the questions I have put to you at least 4 times. You are obviously more interested in slinging insults than discussion.

And I've already told you that I don't care that that all those people who made a ton of money under Clinton with the old 39.6% rates are being asked to pay that rate again. Why are you so obsessed with calling me "bitter" for merely pointing out the facts?

Have a day.

gmule wrote: Bushes tax cuts expired. Obama extended them thus making them his tax cuts from that point on.
I am not opposed to returning the taxes back to what they were under Clinton.

So what's the problem then? Let's return to tax rates that benefited everyone.

gmule wrote: Why is it so wrong that someone keeps what they earn?

Would you be more specific what you mean by this? Do you mean folks deserve to keep 100% of each dollar they earn? I don't agree with that, if that's what you mean. I think citizens owe a percentage to their nation every time there is a transfer of money. When business is conducted, money changes hands, you pay Caesar...that's how it works. That's what makes this a nation, a society, a civilization, a community. I choose to remain a part of the system as I recognize the benefits outweigh the negatives, but if I felt differently, I'd go find a place where there were no taxes, no society, no civilization...

Some posts were split out and moved here: <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href=" www.285bound.com/285forum/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=24990 " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=29&t=24990<!-- l -->