First Stimulus, Now "Deficit Reduction".

[DancingBear]

Yes, I do understand that. I was trying to avoid a long involved post when I first posted.

Now, we all know our tax code is not so simple as you make $X, you pay X%. There are tax credits, etc for various things as long as you make under a certain amount of money. My little fun job brought in just enough money that we were no longer eligible for one of those credits. So, while, technically, my income wasn't taxed at 100% because of a higher tax bracket. The net result was the same. Our tax bill went up by more than the amount of money I earned.

So, your story doesn't have anything to do with the repeal of the Bush tax cuts on higher earners. Got it.

 

[MiniGirl]

So, your story doesn't have anything to do with the repeal of the Bush tax cuts on higher earners. Got it.

I never claimed it did. People were expressing doubt over why others would intentionally try to earn less money. I was simply showing how my earning a little money cost my family more than I had actually earned. No more. No less.

 

[declansdad]

Yes, and the many socialist-form countries in Europe are moving more towards a capitalist system because the production of the people dwindled with socialist policies. The 30 hour work week, the 5-6 weeks paid vacation sound great, but the end result is reduced GDP, increasing taxes and is doomed to go broke.

I didn't say a true socialist state was a good idea onnly that there was a difference between socialism and communism. A communist state has complete ownership and control of the resources by a central authority. All decisions are made by this authority. That is not the definition of socialism.

 

[declansdad]

Anything the goes away from Capitalism and towards Communism..is pure evil.
Run from it.
Capitalism is the path towards freedom. Especially economic freedom.

You realize that the US system, like many other countries, have a mixed economy and not a true capitalistic system. To be true to capitalism, there would be zero government interaction in the economy.

 

[SteveInBrooklyn]

The title of the thread shows Obama is on the ball. We need stimulus to deal with the recession, but long term Obama is ready with a plan to reduce the deficit as well. Excellent!!! Finally we have a president who seems to know what he's doing. It may seem confusing to some because it has been lacking in the White House for so long, but this is an example of COMPETENCE.

 

[corndog]

Is this a serious post?

Do most Repulicans believe Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11?

Your statement is a bit of a nonsequitur, isn't it? What does political affiliation have to do with anything?

And, yes, I'm serious.

 

[corndog]

And where does the states get most of the money from?

No Child Left Behind which is what pays for many schools, run by the federal government.

Roads, paid for by the federal government.

Sure with much of that the state writes the check, but it is paid for by the federal government.

What local school do you know that would give up the money from No Child Left Behind? I don't know any (although I wish they would, but that is another topic)

I am aware of what happens. All I am saying is what is actually permitted under our constitution is quite different.

 

[ICF]

so are people against trying to reduce the deficit?

I thought many were against the stimulus as it grew the deficit too much, and now Obama wants to lay out a budget to help reduce the deficit and that's a bad thing too?

 

[Quiksilvr]

As strongly as I feel about this particular issue, it has been argued to death on the boards and no one is changing their minds about it. The same posters who supported the Obama campaign platform are supporting the policy initatives, and the people who opposed the platform continue to oppose it. I just don't feel like we're accomplishing anything with this back-and-forth.

So, as much as I am tempted to roll up my sleeves, jump into the fray, and defend my anti-wealth-redistribution comrades, I think I'm going to sit this one out. Maybe I'll get in on the next one.

 

[PeterPan09]

As strongly as I feel about this particular issue, it has been argued to death on the boards and no one is changing their minds about it. The same posters who supported the Obama campaign platform are supporting the policy initatives, and the people who opposed the platform continue to oppose it. I just don't feel like we're accomplishing anything with this back-and-forth.

So, as much as I am tempted to roll up my sleeves, jump into the fray, and defend my anti-wealth-redistribution comrades, I think I'm going to sit this one out. Maybe I'll get in on the next one.

For the last 8 years, the same could be said. Everything President Bush did made his supporters happy, while it made the people who didn't support him upset. The people who didn't support Bush somehow survived that 8 years, the people who don't support Obama likely will survive his term(s) as well.

If the Bush supporters are looking for payback on those who criticized "their guy" I guess that's motivation to keep this stuff going-but otherwise, you're right. It's just going round and round and nobody is going to change anyone's mind.

 

[sanfran22]

As strongly as I feel about this particular issue, it has been argued to death on the boards and no one is changing their minds about it. The same posters who supported the Obama campaign platform are supporting the policy initatives, and the people who opposed the platform continue to oppose it. I just don't feel like we're accomplishing anything with this back-and-forth.

So, as much as I am tempted to roll up my sleeves, jump into the fray, and defend my anti-wealth-redistribution comrades, I think I'm going to sit this one out. Maybe I'll get in on the next one.

Yeah, I think I'm done as well.....We just need to hold on for the next few years and make a difference at the polls (especially the congressional ones).

 

[SteveInBrooklyn]

so are people against trying to reduce the deficit?

I thought many were against the stimulus as it grew the deficit too much, and now Obama wants to lay out a budget to help reduce the deficit and that's a bad thing too?

Ha. Good point. Some people will criticize, no matter what Obama does. If he cures cancer you'll see a thread titled "Obama policies increase population to dangerous levels."

 

[AndyLL]

Your statement is a bit of a nonsequitur, isn't it? What does political affiliation have to do with anything?

And, yes, I'm serious.

Nothing nonsequitur about it... I just want to determine if the current Republican talking point is that Afghanistan had no involvement in 9/11 or if that is just your opinion.

So... are you also 1 of the 20% that still believe Iraq was involved in 9/11?

 

[HakunaMatata2]

so are people against trying to reduce the deficit?

I thought many were against the stimulus as it grew the deficit too much, and now Obama wants to lay out a budget to help reduce the deficit and that's a bad thing too?

It is a bad thing when his plan destroys the 'golden goose' that would help bail us out of this bailout. Whether Obama likes it or not, the only answer to the country's financial situation lies in the private sector, not government.

Obama's plans are raising havoc with business and the market, which are the only places he will see real growth, potential for tax dollars and a solid solution for the financial and job crisis.

Both Margaret Thatcher and Putin have warned against Obama's socialistic policies. Perhaps he needs to listen to their warnings. Working at signing bills all day long is useless if those actions destroy the fabric of our country.

 

[SteveInBrooklyn]

It is a bad thing when his plan destroys the 'golden goose' that would help bail us out of this bailout. Whether Obama likes it or not, the only answer to the country's financial situation lies in the private sector, not government.
Obama's plans are raising havoc with business and the market, which are the only places he will see real growth, potential for tax dollars and a solid solution for the financial and job crisis.

Both Margaret Thatcher and Putin have warned against Obama's socialistic policies. Perhaps he needs to listen to their warnings. Working at signing bills all day long is useless if those actions destroy the fabric of our country.

Why can't government create wealth?????

 

[AndyLL]

It is a bad thing when his plan destroys the 'golden goose' that would help bail us out of this bailout. Whether Obama likes it or not, the only answer to the country's financial situation lies in the private sector, not government.

Obama's plans are raising havoc with business and the market, which are the only places he will see real growth, potential for tax dollars and a solid solution for the financial and job crisis.

All Obama is doing is rolling back the tax rates to the 90s levels for a coupld of brackets. Some of the best growth happended during that time.

If the Republicans did not expect the tax increase to have to happen then why did they make the tax cuts temporary.

Both Margaret Thatcher and Putin have warned against Obama's socialistic policies. Perhaps he needs to listen to their warnings. Working at signing bills all day long is useless if those actions destroy the fabric of our country.

We're to listen to Putin for economic advice now.

 

[adkkev]

For the last 8 years, the same could be said. Everything President Bush did made his supporters happy, while it made the people who didn't support him upset. The people who didn't support Bush somehow survived that 8 years, the people who don't support Obama likely will survive his term(s) as well.

If the Bush supporters are looking for payback on those who criticized "their guy" I guess that's motivation to keep this stuff going-but otherwise, you're right. It's just going round and round and nobody is going to change anyone's mind.

so true ... but SOOO entertaining!

 

[TLSnell1981]

So... are you also 1 of the 20% that still believe Iraq was involved in 9/11?

Some never will get the "big" picture.

 

[big kahuna1]

He campaigned on this. He's working hard in Washington.

 

[ICF]

It is a bad thing when his plan destroys the 'golden goose' that would help bail us out of this bailout. Whether Obama likes it or not, the only answer to the country's financial situation lies in the private sector, not government.

The same tax rates were in place in the 90's and things were going pretty good back then.

Somehow I don't think raising the tax rate a few % is going to kill any golden geese.