Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 112
  1. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by solarus View Post
    The only guy I see that would make any headway with both the Republican base and the moderates is Chris Christie - he is fiscally conservative but quite reasonable when it comes to issues such as immigration, civil unions, and the environment. At least from my perspective as a rational conservative.

    As a straight shooter who isn't afraid to call BS when he sees it it will be a nice change too.

    All that been said, I also think Obama will benefit from having a Republican Congress to serve as a check against moving too far from center, so 2012 may be a bust for a Republican President. It was pointed out a few weeks ago that in September of 1994, Bill Clinton had a lower approval rating at the than Obama did in September of 2010.
    Those are all very good and valid points. You may well be right but I just wanted to point out that Clinton was not put over the top by predominantly one-time voters. If Obama loses his luster among these "formerly disenfranchised voters" he's in big trouble. And I think that's just what will happen. Not to mention, if marijuana is legalized his California voters will, oh, let's say "lack the motivation" to get to the polls.
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by kkhanmd View Post
    If republicans come back, I will pay less taxes I loved Bush for cutting taxes, I say Bush could have been our president for next 30 years. Few more wars, less taxes and more money for me.
    Except that...most of us have paid lower taxes since President Obama took office. And the U.S. has a lower deficit. And the markets are much higher. (Details here.) And it was the Bush Administration that built an expiration date into its tax cuts, and Republicans in Congress who have blocked efforts to extend those tax cuts for all but the top income of the top earners (who *still* benefit from lower rates on the first $250k of their income if the cuts are extended).

    Now you may be one of those few very wealthy folks, or a company owner who has moved employees and income offshore, or a member of one of those other groups that benefit from the middle-class-killing policies of the Bush Administration. If so, your statement might be true, but then again, given how badly the entire economy was doing in the final two years of the Bush Administration (and how few net jobs were created during Bush's first term, a fact many forget), it likely isn't.

    By the way, at what point do all the favors earned by the publicly undisclosed (but hardly anonymous to the recipients) donors to Crossroads GPS and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for anti-Democratic advertisements this season become due? At what cost to the rest of us? {Jonathan}
    Prof. Jonathan I. Ezor
    Writer, PreCentral
    Past Palm Real Reviewer
    @webOSquire on Twitter
  3. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    I've never heard of him, so that's 10 points in his favor. We need a new crop of politicians that have held real jobs...
    Dude spend ten minutes and see what I mean.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    I've never heard of him, so that's 10 points in his favor. We need a new crop of politicians that have held real jobs...
    You realize the irony in that's actually what got Obama so much of his support for his election, right? Kind of diminishes the odds of it working again so soon especially when the people running with that same "pro" for several Congress seats this year end up not producing the "changes" they promised 2 years from now.
  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan I Ezor View Post
    Except that...most of us have paid lower taxes since President Obama took office. And the U.S. has a lower deficit. And the markets are much higher. (Details here.) And it was the Bush Administration that built an expiration date into its tax cuts, and Republicans in Congress who have blocked efforts to extend those tax cuts for all but the top income of the top earners (who *still* benefit from lower rates on the first $250k of their income if the cuts are extended).

    Now you may be one of those few very wealthy folks, or a company owner who has moved employees and income offshore, or a member of one of those other groups that benefit from the middle-class-killing policies of the Bush Administration. If so, your statement might be true, but then again, given how badly the entire economy was doing in the final two years of the Bush Administration (and how few net jobs were created during Bush's first term, a fact many forget), it likely isn't.

    By the way, at what point do all the favors earned by the publicly undisclosed (but hardly anonymous to the recipients) donors to Crossroads GPS and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for anti-Democratic advertisements this season become due? At what cost to the rest of us? {Jonathan}
    ummm, if we paid lower taxes it's because we had less income to tax. and the deficit grew more in the last two years than in the previous 8. I'm not defending bush, but I am challenging your facts.

    and in terms of donations... do you believe that the democrats and moveon.org are any different? really?

    just sayin
  6. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #26  
    > $250k/yr = very wealthy?
  7. #27  
    Yeah, hopefully the Republicans will cut my taxes more and reverse the tax cuts for the middle class that Obama put in. If Obama had his way, I'd have to pay at least $8000 more taxes on my $200k+ income. Reagan and Bush realized that we can use deficit spending to cut taxes. I get the reward now, someone else's children foot the bill. Pure genius!

    But unfortunately, nothing is going to get done these next two years. It isn't like a bunch of moderates are replacing liberal Democrats. A bunch of ultra-conservative Republicans are replacing moderate Democrats. That means what are left are hard core conservatives and liberals, and no one in between. We have the same problem in CA and look how well our state gov't functions.
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Dude spend ten minutes and see what I mean.
    Oh, I remember this guy. his oponent ran negative ads about his weight. I forgot about him, but I was glad he won after that nasty contest.
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    > $250k/yr = very wealthy?
    it ain't "very wealthy" anywhere I've ever lived.

    take a quick trip to the googles and see which political philosophy supports the idea that the political ruling class gets to decide how much money a person really needs, or what level of income is "rich"... and it won't be in the section on capitalism.

    I'm glad that was as confusing to you as it was to me...
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    ummm, if we paid lower taxes it's because we had less income to tax. and the deficit grew more in the last two years than in the previous 8. I'm not defending bush, but I am challenging your facts.
    Before you try to call someone out on their facts, you might want to check your own. Tax RATES went down under Obama for the vast majority of people. Although total tax REVENUES might have gone down, too, that is because of the state of the economy. If the economy was held constant, you'd still see taxes going down under Obama. That was part of the stimulus package (Obama), which is not the same as TARP (Bush).

    The growth of the deficit is mostly due to corrections in the way the gov't accounted for the war spending. Bush did not ask for military appropriations in the budget, and could therefore claim smaller deficits in his budget. He then used emergency spending bills to fund the military operations, which did not figure into the popular deficit numbers, despite it being deficit spending. Obama consolidated that into the budget, which made the deficit appear to sharply grow. He also expended more for the stimulus package, but the lion's share of the deficit is from (1) Bush tax cuts, and (2) military spending now accounted for in the budget.

    So to say the deficit grew more in the past two than the previous eight years is misleading at best and flatly wrong, objectively speaking.
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    > $250k/yr = very wealthy?
    If I was making that much I'd own an iPad or 2!
  12. #32  
    GOP has Chris Christie and Marco Rubio...
  13. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion Antares View Post
    If I was making that much I'd own an iPad or 2!
    Actually, statistically speaking, if your household was making that much you'd probably be married to a moderately successful person as well, living in the suburbs paying about $2-3k/month in mortgage, two car payments, supporting a family of four, and saving for retirement and college expenses. Don't get me wrong, it's not bad at all but it doesn't go as far as it sounds.
  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    [>$250k/yr] ain't "very wealthy" anywhere I've ever lived.
    As someone who nearly fits that description, I feel the same--NY and SF are expensive. However, given that I'm in the 98th percentile of household income (meaning, 98% of people make less than me), I find it hard to make the argument that I'm not rich with a straight face. I live frugally, so I have a roommate that makes in one year what I make in one month. So... I'm not very wealthy? I think my roommate would disagree with you.
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Don't get me wrong, it's not bad at all but it doesn't go as far as it sounds.
    True financial wealth is not how much one makes, it's how much one saves. Just ask some lottery winners, athletes, etc.
    I see pandas.
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Actually, statistically speaking, if your household was making that much you'd probably be married to a moderately successful person as well, living in the suburbs paying about $2-3k/month in mortgage, two car payments, supporting a family of four, and saving for retirement and college expenses. Don't get me wrong, it's not bad at all but it doesn't go as far as it sounds.
    It goes twice as far as families living on half of that amount and still managing to cover the exact same expenses and savings you listed. Of course assuming they were being equally responsible with their expenses their savings would have to be smaller then the other family.
  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Actually, statistically speaking, if your household was making that much you'd probably be married to a moderately successful person as well, living in the suburbs paying about $2-3k/month in mortgage, two car payments, supporting a family of four, and saving for retirement and college expenses. Don't get me wrong, it's not bad at all but it doesn't go as far as it sounds.
    But those are choices you get to make that others less fortunate cannot. If you lived in the same kind of house/apartment that someone at the median income lived in, had the same kind of cars that they had, and lived a lifestyle like they did, it would go as far as it sounds. But as we make more we make choices to spend more on things that are not necessary but we come to think of as necessary.

    Live in a 2 bedroom apartment in a not-so-nice area of town (kids have to share). Drive a 10 year old car that you maintain yourself to save money. Send your kids to community college or public schools such that they can live at home. Drop the cable tv subscription and the smartphone data plan. Money goes as far as you want it to.
  18. solarus's Avatar
    Posts
    554 Posts
    Global Posts
    575 Global Posts
    #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan I Ezor View Post
    Except that...most of us have paid lower taxes since President Obama took office. And the U.S. has a lower deficit. And the markets are much higher. (Details here.) And it was the Bush Administration that built an expiration date into its tax cuts, and Republicans in Congress who have blocked efforts to extend those tax cuts for all but the top income of the top earners (who *still* benefit from lower rates on the first $250k of their income if the cuts are extended).

    Now you may be one of those few very wealthy folks, or a company owner who has moved employees and income offshore, or a member of one of those other groups that benefit from the middle-class-killing policies of the Bush Administration. If so, your statement might be true, but then again, given how badly the entire economy was doing in the final two years of the Bush Administration (and how few net jobs were created during Bush's first term, a fact many forget), it likely isn't.

    By the way, at what point do all the favors earned by the publicly undisclosed (but hardly anonymous to the recipients) donors to Crossroads GPS and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for anti-Democratic advertisements this season become due? At what cost to the rest of us? {Jonathan}
    I certainly won't defend George Bush's economic policies, but I don't think the DailyKoz is really the bastion of independent and non-bias analysis. I might as well go to TheDailyBeast to find the exact opposite results from their analysis.
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    ummm, if we paid lower taxes it's because we had less income to tax. and the deficit grew more in the last two years than in the previous 8. I'm not defending bush, but I am challenging your facts.

    and in terms of donations... do you believe that the democrats and moveon.org are any different? really?

    just sayin
    First, you're incorrect. The Making Work Pay Tax Credit, part of the stimulus bill, directly reduced the tax withheld from Americans' paychecks, as per the IRS:

    In 2009 and 2010, the Making Work Pay provision of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will provide a refundable tax credit of up to $400 for working individuals and up to $800 for married taxpayers filing joint returns.

    This tax credit will be calculated at a rate of 6.2 percent of earned income and will phase out for taxpayers with modified adjusted gross income in excess of $75,000, or $150,000 for married couples filing jointly.

    For people who receive a paycheck and are subject to withholding, the credit will typically be handled by their employers through automated withholding changes. These changes may result in an increase in take-home pay. The amount of the credit will be computed on the employee's 2009 income tax return filed in 2010 and the employee's 2010 tax return filed in 2011. Taxpayers who do not have taxes withheld by an employer during the year can also claim the credit on their 2009 and 2010 tax returns.

    It is not necessary to do anything to get the automatic withholding change. However, an employee with multiple jobs or a married couple whose combined income places it in a higher tax bracket should consult the IRS withholding calculator and, if necessary, submit a revised Form W-4, Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate, to ensure enough tax is withheld. Publication 919, How Do I Adjust My Tax Withholding? provides additional guidance for tax withholding including a special Making Work Pay worksheet.
    Second, with regards to donations, Moveon.org reports its donor list, and it is generally available from opensecrets.org (although that site is currently down for some reason). By contrast, the recent Citizens United decision of the Roberts-led Supreme Court has enabled unlimited and frequently undisclosed corporate contributions to 501(c)(4) organizations which have pouring literally hundreds of millions of dollars into this campaign season, without saying from whom or what companies (or countries) the money has come. See, for example, this recent expose (one of many) in The New York Times. You cannot equate the two, as much as the right-wing media and blogosphere would like to. (For that matter, Newscorp, the parent of Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, itself has contributed huge amounts to Republican political organizations and ballot initiatives, and failed to disclose this in its "reporting.")

    As the late Senator Moynihan said, ""Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." {Jonathan}
    Prof. Jonathan I. Ezor
    Writer, PreCentral
    Past Palm Real Reviewer
    @webOSquire on Twitter
  20. #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by solarus View Post
    I certainly won't defend George Bush's economic policies, but I don't think the DailyKoz is really the bastion of independent and non-bias analysis. I might as well go to TheDailyBeast to find the exact opposite results from their analysis.
    The point of the link to DailyKos was to allow you to then read the sources provided by and linked to in that article. Such as the Congressional Budget Office. And the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Unless you consider those biased. {Jonathan}
    Prof. Jonathan I. Ezor
    Writer, PreCentral
    Past Palm Real Reviewer
    @webOSquire on Twitter
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions