World Politics

Page 105 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.

ravens

BANNED
Nov 22, 2009
780
0
0
scribe said:
You got one type of administration looking to bridge gaps in loss of revenue (my side), and another looking to feed special interest such as independent defense contractors (your side). Both run at a deficit.

There is nothing funny about that.

Keep Drinking that salty Kool-Aid, Scribe.

Your messiah can't even keep his fingers crossed behind his back for a day.

After Obama rips lobbyists, K Street insiders get private policy briefings
By Bob Cusack - 01/28/10 11:02 AM ET
A day after bashing lobbyists, President Barack Obama’s administration has invited K Street insiders to join private briefings on a range of topics addressed in Wednesday’s State of the Union.
 

ravens

BANNED
Nov 22, 2009
780
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Let me be the first to categorically deny any and all political aspirations. I will not, repeat, will not be on a ticket with Palin or Sybil.

I hope this is clear.

I get amused how they get so psycho over Palin. I don't recall ever say anything about her one way or the other, but she is like showing the cross to dracula. Except they keep showing the cross to themselves and going in a panic over it.

search the thread for palin mentions or almost any of their other favorite boogeymen. No one brings them up who isn't a lib. if they started a Palin thread, it would just be libs having a circle jerk over how much they hate her. Have at it, if that's what it takes!
 

ravens

BANNED
Nov 22, 2009
780
0
0
Oncearunner8 said:
you mean Purple Drink?

Hey ACORN is the shizz. Sit back and relax.

especially if you are looking to open an underage brothel and need help dodging taxes
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
This ought to get the economy off it's ass. Welcome to the rest of your life.



"The targeted tax provisions were enacted under the Bush administration's Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. Among other things, the law lowered individual tax rates, slashed taxes on capital gains and dividends, and steadily scaled back the estate tax to zero in 2010.


If the provisions are allowed to expire on December 31, the top-tier personal income tax rate will rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent. But lower-income families will pay more as well: the 25 percent tax bracket will revert back to 28 percent; the 28 percent bracket will increase to 31 percent; and the 33 percent bracket will increase to 36 percent. The special 10 percent bracket is eliminated.

Investors will pay more on their earnings next year as well, with the tax on dividends jumping to 39.6 percent from 15 percent and the capital-gains tax increasing to 20 percent from 15 percent. The estate tax is eliminated this year, but it will return in 2011 -- though there has been talk about reinstating the death tax sooner.


Millions of middle-class households already may be facing higher taxes in 2010 because Congress has failed to extend tax breaks that expired on January 1, most notably a "patch" that limited the impact of the alternative minimum tax".




I dunno, just a hunch here but if a Republican were to raise taxes on the middle class I can only imagine the howl coming from the left.

As a side note, I guess we can now say the Bush tax plan was not just a gift to the 'wealthiest Americans'.

Someone on the left help me out here... how will Obama allowing the Bush tax plan to sunset be able to blame it on Bush?

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/100201/us/usreport_us_budget_backdoortaxes
 

Carboncrank

BANNED
Jul 27, 2009
623
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
This is a little off topic, but Clinton once said something casually in about 1997 about why he was advocating deficit reduction and balancing the budget and the so called "lock box" for Social Security (and Medicare) that never happened. He noted almost casually it grew the economy because it kept long term interest rates down, and both investor and consumer confidence up. Now there was no real hard numbers to back what he was saying, and it can be spun so many ways, but there was a lot of common sense to what he was saying.

He was trying to please Allan Greenspan.

Nothing like a recession/depression to hold interest and inflation down.

You know were we actually in deflation for 8 or 12 months last year with an overall inflation rate for the year that was actually deflation.

I don't think that got talked about much.
 

Carboncrank

BANNED
Jul 27, 2009
623
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
This ought to get the economy off it's ass. Welcome to the rest of your life.



"The targeted tax provisions were enacted under the Bush administration's Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. Among other things, the law lowered individual tax rates, slashed taxes on capital gains and dividends, and steadily scaled back the estate tax to zero in 2010.


If the provisions are allowed to expire on December 31, the top-tier personal income tax rate will rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent. But lower-income families will pay more as well: the 25 percent tax bracket will revert back to 28 percent; the 28 percent bracket will increase to 31 percent; and the 33 percent bracket will increase to 36 percent. The special 10 percent bracket is eliminated.

Investors will pay more on their earnings next year as well, with the tax on dividends jumping to 39.6 percent from 15 percent and the capital-gains tax increasing to 20 percent from 15 percent. The estate tax is eliminated this year, but it will return in 2011 -- though there has been talk about reinstating the death tax sooner.


Millions of middle-class households already may be facing higher taxes in 2010 because Congress has failed to extend tax breaks that expired on January 1, most notably a "patch" that limited the impact of the alternative minimum tax".




I dunno, just a hunch here but if a Republican were to raise taxes on the middle class I can only imagine the howl coming from the left.

As a side note, I guess we can now say the Bush tax plan was not just a gift to the 'wealthiest Americans'.

Someone on the left help me out here... how will Obama allowing the Bush tax plan to sunset be able to blame it on Bush?

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/100201/us/usreport_us_budget_backdoortaxes

that's a dead link
 

Carboncrank

BANNED
Jul 27, 2009
623
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
This ought to get the economy off it's ass. Welcome to the rest of your life.



"The targeted tax provisions were enacted under the Bush administration's Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. Among other things, the law lowered individual tax rates, slashed taxes on capital gains and dividends, and steadily scaled back the estate tax to zero in 2010.


If the provisions are allowed to expire on December 31, the top-tier personal income tax rate will rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent. But lower-income families will pay more as well: the 25 percent tax bracket will revert back to 28 percent; the 28 percent bracket will increase to 31 percent; and the 33 percent bracket will increase to 36 percent. The special 10 percent bracket is eliminated.

Investors will pay more on their earnings next year as well, with the tax on dividends jumping to 39.6 percent from 15 percent and the capital-gains tax increasing to 20 percent from 15 percent. The estate tax is eliminated this year, but it will return in 2011 -- though there has been talk about reinstating the death tax sooner.


Millions of middle-class households already may be facing higher taxes in 2010 because Congress has failed to extend tax breaks that expired on January 1, most notably a "patch" that limited the impact of the alternative minimum tax".




I dunno, just a hunch here but if a Republican were to raise taxes on the middle class I can only imagine the howl coming from the left.

As a side note, I guess we can now say the Bush tax plan was not just a gift to the 'wealthiest Americans'.

Someone on the left help me out here... how will Obama allowing the Bush tax plan to sunset be able to blame it on Bush?

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/100201/us/usreport_us_budget_backdoortaxes

Dead link, and not true.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/2010_budget_high-income.cfm
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ravens said:
reuters pulled the story

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/100202/us/usreport_us_budget_backdoortaxes

It's a good thing much of the text was copied into the post, contrary to forum guidelines.



Well that was just a little bit of the story.

Can't have any criticism of the Obama Administration from the press. This would be funny if it were not so disgusting.

Edit: If Reuters got it wrong then I withdraw the comments above. It's early in the budget process but it has been widely speculated that this administration's plan was to let the tax plans of 2001 and 2003 expire. It would be good economic news if they didn't raise any taxes, but we shall see.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Carboncrank said:
More debunking of the same story.

Give it up. Nothing changes for those at less than 250,000


http://mediamatters.org/research/201002010055

Well now you have no credibility.

Please excuse me if I withold judgement on what is actually ratified in the budget as my hackles are now up since you have used media matters as your source.

It didn't take long for the lap-dogs to put forth the talking points to crush the Reuters story. Betcha every liberal talking head will spew the same line tonight on their talk-shows.
 

ravens

BANNED
Nov 22, 2009
780
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Well now you have no credibility.

Please excuse me if I withold judgement on what is actually ratified in the budget as my hackles are now up since you have used media matters as your source.

It didn't take long for the lap-dogs to put forth the talking points to crush the Reuters story. Betcha every liberal talking head will spew the same line tonight on their talk-shows.

CC is a well known troll. I almost feel sorry for the libs that he is on their side. Almost.

Someone had to get him. Kinda like choosing up sides in elementary school.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ChrisE said:
Is "household" defined as a married couple, or is it also individuals?

Households seemingly only defined by levels of income. 250k or more for marrieds and 200k or more for single persons (I think I read that somewhere).
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ravens said:
CC is a well known troll. I almost feel sorry for the libs that he is on their side. Almost.

Someone had to get him. Kinda like choosing up sides in elementary school.


Must suck being the last one picked.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
FINALLY, someone is hiring.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/02/burgeoning-federal-payroll-signals-return-of-big-g/

"The Obama administration says the government will grow to 2.15 million employees this year, topping 2 million for the first time since President Clinton declared that "the era of big government is over" and joined forces with a Republican-led Congress in the 1990s to pare back the federal work force. "

And ya can't blame it on the military.

"Most of the increases are on the civilian side, which will grow by 153,000 workers, to 1.43 million people, in fiscal 2010."
 

ravens

BANNED
Nov 22, 2009
780
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
FINALLY, someone is hiring.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/02/burgeoning-federal-payroll-signals-return-of-big-g/

"The Obama administration says the government will grow to 2.15 million employees this year, topping 2 million for the first time since President Clinton declared that "the era of big government is over" and joined forces with a Republican-led Congress in the 1990s to pare back the federal work force. "

And ya can't blame it on the military.

"Most of the increases are on the civilian side, which will grow by 153,000 workers, to 1.43 million people, in fiscal 2010."

....who said 'the error of big government is over' ?
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,867
1,276
20,680
ravens said:
CC is a well known troll. I almost feel sorry for the libs that he is on their side. Almost.

Someone had to get him. Kinda like choosing up sides in elementary school.

Oh just stop.:D
 

Carboncrank

BANNED
Jul 27, 2009
623
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Well now you have no credibility.

Please excuse me if I withold judgement on what is actually ratified in the budget as my hackles are now up since you have used media matters as your source.

It didn't take long for the lap-dogs to put forth the talking points to crush the Reuters story. Betcha every liberal talking head will spew the same line tonight on their talk-shows.

The media matters story gets it's figures from the actual Budget of the US Government fiscal 2011.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/budget.pdf#page=168

Where did you get yours?
 

Carboncrank

BANNED
Jul 27, 2009
623
0
0
ravens said:
CC is a well known troll. I almost feel sorry for the libs that he is on their side. Almost.

Someone had to get him. Kinda like choosing up sides in elementary school.

Evidently, you would know, as it appears you're still IN elementary school.

Toll this, troll that, he's a troll, oh what a troll. troll, troll.

I think about one post out of ten you don't call someone a name.

Quit being so infantile.
 

ravens

BANNED
Nov 22, 2009
780
0
0
The Plot Thickens

Obama says jump, and our 4th estate says how high! Gosh, things have changed since Watergate!

I pasted the entire text before this story also gets pulled

Bolds are mine.
Obama to use backdoor taxes to hit middle class? Oops, not true.

Reuters withdrew a story Tuesday that suggested Obama would cut the deficit through backdoor taxes on the middle class.

By Laurent Belsie
posted February 2, 2010 at 6:52 pm EST

It says something about the state of partisanship in America when the biggest budget story of the day is a nonstory. Literally.

After Reuters published a story Monday about how backdoor taxes would hit middle-class Americans under President Obama, the White House complained about inaccuracies.
Reuters pulled it Tuesday morning, saying a replacement story would be coming. Later in the day, it said the story was wrong and that there would be no substitute.

By then, however, the story was Internet buzz: The Obama administration was going to cut the deficits by letting a raft of tax cuts expire, hurting the middle class. Some conservative bloggers posted it before it could be deleted.

While it's true that if Congress did let all the Bush tax cuts and other provisions expire, the middle class would end up paying boatloads more money, it's not reasonable to suggest that that will happen. Some tax cuts are just so popular – for Democrats as well as Republicans – that it's unlikely they'll be allowed to lapse anytime soon, says William Ahern, spokesman for the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan tax-research group in Washington, D.C..

In fact, the president's budget, released this week, calls for a continuation of the Bush tax cuts for anyone making less than $250,000. It also calls for continuing the so-called "patch" to the alternative minimum tax (AMT) so that millions of middle-class Americans don't get snared by the higher levies it imposes.

By letting the federal estate tax lapse late last year, Congress raised some eyebrows – and perhaps some hopes – that the controversial levy would disappear. But the Obama budget calls for the 45 percent rate in force during 2009 to be continued in 2010.

So much for the White House cutting the deficit through backdoor tax increases on the middle class.

Other Obama tax increases affecting the middle class are in line with expectations, such as the hike in the tax rate on capital gains and dividends to 20 percent.

The brouhaha does raise one other issue: If the Obama administration lets several stimulus-related tax provisions expire, like the sales-tax reduction on the purchase of new cars, is that a tax increase?

It means more money out of taxpayer pocketbooks. But these tax breaks were never intended to be permanent the way the Bush tax cuts were intended, says Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank sponsored by the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. "It becomes a philosophical question," he writes in an e-mail.

Just as philosophical, I suppose, as whether a discredited story that's been killed is still a news story if it lives online.


If you make greater than $250k or 200k depending on your status, you better start working 168 hours per week, because you are gonna have to bust hump to make up the deficits for the next 10 years.

Ain't class warfare grand? Betcha we end up with a lot less people making less than 200-250k/year. Funny thing about earners, they know how to game the system like any rational person would, but it just makes libs hate them all the more.

We will have to nationalize the means of production. That oughtta teach 'em!
 

ravens

BANNED
Nov 22, 2009
780
0
0
Status
Not open for further replies.