Scruffy wrote: $900 billion unpaid for! Where is the fiscal outrage from the right? You would think the teabaggers would be boiling with rage.
Actually a lot of the teabaggers are upset with this. The Far Left & Far Right are trying to torpedo this legislation. Who ever knew these two groups would agree on something?
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Scruffy wrote: $900 billion unpaid for! Where is the fiscal outrage from the right? You would think the teabaggers would be boiling with rage.
Actually a lot of the teabaggers are upset with this. The Far Left & Far Right are trying to torpedo this legislation. Who ever knew these two groups would agree on something?
I'm glad to hear that. I think this bill makes no sense and hope it gets shot down. It is amusing to once again see how the parties are falling all over themselves switching sides and justifying their flip-flopping.
What I see as I read the thread from the progressive crowd is outrage towards the Republicans. I don't see outrage at President Obama for insisting that unemployment welfare be extended another 13 months or for insisting upon the continuation of the 2% cut in the employment privilege taxes. I don't see outrage directed at Pelosi and her progressive cabal for voting to make permanent tax cuts amounting to $3 Trillion dollars over the next ten years. What I do see it outrage at Republicans for making a deal with the president that adds $140 Billion in the next 2 years to the total by their insistence that the existing tax rates remain the same for everyone until the next election instead of only those deemed deserving enough by the progressives. They even agreed to raise taxes by reinstating the Death Tax on estates in excess of $5 Million at a 35% rate when the existing rate is 0% on any estate.
Why are the progressives so upset at the Republicans for giving the progressives so much of what they wanted instead of being upset with the progressives for insisting upon spending another 3/4 of a Trillion dollars in the next 2 years without paying for it first? Why in the world are the attempting to lay the total sum of $900 Billion at the feet of the Republican party when 85% of that figure is what they were planning on spending in the first instance?
So you see no problem with giving the top 2% of the wealthy a tax cut, but want to deny benefits to the long term unemployed? Which is going to spend the money given to them by the government? Will the millionaires and billionaires spend the extra few thousand dollars or will the unemployed trying to pay rent and buy groceries?
the wealthier tend to provide jobs. i won't say all but more do. the more you tax the less there is to develop jobs. i don't see the unemployed developing jobs. but maybe if they aren't on the dole they will get off their duffs and figure out how to find or develop one.
bumper sticker - honk if you will pay my mortgage
"The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." attributed to Margaret Thatcher
"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government." Thomas Jefferson
mtntrekker wrote: i don't see lack of logic nor lack of compassion.
the wealthier tend to provide jobs. i won't say all but more do. the more you tax the less there is to develop jobs. i don't see the unemployed developing jobs. but maybe if they aren't on the dole they will get off their duffs and figure out how to find or develop one.
I appreciate that and see your point, but I have yet to see a study that says those who will be receiving the top tax cuts would add jobs due to the additional money.
Those unemployed, especially the long term unemployed, know that there just aren't jobs out there. Saying that they are lazy and should get off their butts is not the reality that I've seen. People are trying, they are looking and they need help. That's what the unemployment extension is. Remember, unemployment benefits are not 100% of your salary, it's more like 60% or even less. I don't remember as it's been since the 90's since I was involved, but I don know that you have to demonstrate that you are actively seeking a job, that you are interviewing, applying, trying. It's not all "sit on the couch eating bon bons and watching Oprah." It's demoralizing and degrading to look for a job in todays market.
mtntrekker wrote: iI appreciate that and see your point, but I have yet to see a study that says those who will be receiving the top tax cuts would add jobs due to the additional money.