This is exactly what they ran on and got swept into congress in the biggest turnover in 70 years. At least they're sticking to their promise -- this time...
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Dec 1, 2010, at 3:11 PM
How about acting Speaker Rep. Laura Richardson of California........
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Dec 1, 2010, at 8:24 PM
I hope the government, senate, and house does shut down. That McConnell from KY looks like a mouse on bowtox!
-- Posted by D49F11 on Wed, Dec 1, 2010, at 8:27 PM
The big mistake the republicans made after the '94 elections was rewriting the rules to be fair to the democrats.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Dec 1, 2010, at 8:43 PM
Old John,
I hope they make Harry Reid wish he had lost the election before they are through with him.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Dec 1, 2010, at 8:46 PM
Old John,
Are you familiar with the book "Life on the Edge of the Great Dark Cypress Swamp" published in 2001?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Dec 1, 2010, at 8:50 PM
Well Caddy,
At least they won't be marching to Nancy Pelosi's drum beat! And it sounds like old Dirty Harry Reid will have his hands full.
There was no need for bipartiasanship last 2 years when obama had a bullet proof majority.
It will be up to the other side to be bipartisan this go around, now won't it?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Dec 1, 2010, at 10:47 PM
Der klopen be on der udder foot now Caddy!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Dec 1, 2010, at 10:50 PM
Wheels, I have the book, one of my favorites.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Dec 1, 2010, at 11:02 PM
Old John,
I just got a copy last night and figured you would like it.
A friend picked it up a couple of weeks ago and we were going to get together and do lunch or something. Instead I had to pick it up at the rehab hospital, where he is recovering from a rather serious car wreck. He insisted his wife had to bring the book to the hospital so I could have it to read this winter. A real friend!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Dec 1, 2010, at 11:15 PM
Wheels, What I find most of interest concerns the draining of the swamps and the stories of people after the draglines left. Some of my relatives long past were a part of that life.
The back of the book has a reference to any family names mentioned in the book. Compare those to the names associated with Col Bollingers's bunch and see if they coincide.
Another book, Paul Corbin's [I can't remember the the title] Something Mud, is from a perspective of one growing up in that period.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Dec 1, 2010, at 11:42 PM
Old John,
I have Paul Corbin's book. Got it when it first came out and had him sign it for me. I remember him from the days when he ran the variety store and I was just a punk kid.
He is still sharp as a tack. I called him a few weeks ago for a friend who was looking for a grave in the Zalma area. He didn't know the name, so we chatted for a while about things in general.
Maybe you would know something of the name. Does Hindbaugh ring a bell with you? And I think they may have varied on the spelling somewhat.
Regarding the books, I try to pick up anything of that nature that somebody puts together.
Just a moment on the town of Brownwood. I have always wanted to know more about it and wish I could have seen it in it's heyday. By the time I finally made it over there, not much is left. And that is a shame. Hopefully this book will help to satisfy a little of my curiousity.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Dec 2, 2010, at 12:03 AM
Go figure... congress getting paid to do nothing.
-- Posted by futile_rant on Thu, Dec 2, 2010, at 9:05 AM
I see it as a way to force Congress to attend to a couple of things they have been procrastinating doing and from keeping Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi (the Three Stooges) from shoving some more crap down our throat on their way out of near total power.
And hey, if they do nothing, it will beat hell out of the stooges agenda.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Dec 2, 2010, at 9:24 AM
Wheels, I am not familiar with that name.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Dec 2, 2010, at 11:43 AM
Thanks Old John.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Dec 2, 2010, at 11:59 AM
Wheels, I heard about a fellow with a name that started out the same. As the story goes, he was very supersticious. One Saturday night he started to Cape and a black cat crossed the road in front of him near Arbor so he went back and started the trip over. It had been raining and when got back to where the cat crossed, he met a truck coming down the gravel side. The truck hit a big chug hole and sent the mud and water throught his open window.
He returned and started the trip again with clean clothes. This time he got to where the black cat crossed and had a flat. He fixed the tire and returned home, for by that time he was too late to catch the movie.
They called him "Black Cat Charlie" after that!
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Dec 2, 2010, at 3:23 PM
Old John,
I would say that he should have run over the cat on the first attempt... but I won't, because that would get PITA and all of the animal lovers on my case.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Dec 2, 2010, at 3:27 PM
Go back to sleep Ike... you are not all that funny.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Dec 2, 2010, at 3:41 PM
Those folks are all chasing cats in Omaha.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Dec 2, 2010, at 3:52 PM
I read that somewhere a while back.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Dec 2, 2010, at 3:55 PM
How does extending unemployment benefits stimulate job growth?
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Dec 2, 2010, at 4:11 PM
How does giving Earned Income Tax Credits to those who do not pay taxes, stimulate job growth?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Dec 2, 2010, at 4:26 PM
The lack of any business experience or knowledge on this thread is incredible. Do none of you liberals work? Have you never run a company?
I ran a 40 million dollar company for the owner. He made $2.6 million a year in profits and employed 155 people WITH BENEFITS. I know EXACTLY what he, and others like him, will do if you cut his profits $300-400 thousand a year with a tax increase. About 8 employees will lose their jobs. DUH!!!
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Dec 2, 2010, at 4:31 PM
Spaniard, You are stuck on that what came first thing, demand or supply. BC and others have tried to explain it to you.
Extending the incentive to be unproductive to the rich or the poor has the same result, less production.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Dec 2, 2010, at 5:48 PM
Ike,
I know it escapes you, but the agument, and a justifable one, take these folks money and you destroy their ability to hire when the opportunity presents itself.
And you answered your own dumb question to a degree. What do you suppose rich people do with money??
Didn't Congress find that out a few years ago with their Luxury Tax?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Dec 2, 2010, at 5:53 PM
uh,contract on america. trickle down ecnomics. voo-doo economics. i'm ok,your ok.
-- Posted by workingdude on Thu, Dec 2, 2010, at 8:13 PM
Spaniard - I answered your question, you just refuse to listen (as usual).
If you raise the taxes on business owners they will
a) not hire new people
b) lay off current employees
Is that too hard for you to understand? I know this for fact not fairy tale. Go ahead and raise the taxes on the bad, evil, people who run businesses and see what happens. Your party got us into this mess 4 years ago with the same attitude you present. Now we're at 15% unemployment when you count those that have given up looking for jobs. Nice work!
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Dec 2, 2010, at 8:19 PM
"While there are other items that might ultimately be worthy of the Senate's attention, we cannot agree to prioritize any matters above the critical issues of funding the government and preventing a job-killing tax hike," all 42 GOP senators wrote in a letter..."
Seems like the do nothing GOP is on track again to put their petty political desires ahead of what the American people hired them to do. If returning to tax rates of the prosperous 1990's is "job-killing" meaning obviously that the current tax rates must be "non-job-killing" or job creating. Why weren't there millions of jobs created in 2010, or 2009, or 2008, or 2007 etc.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Dec 2, 2010, at 8:42 PM
Why weren't there millions of jobs created in 2010, or 2009, or 2008, or 2007 etc.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Dec 2, 2010, at 8:42 PM
Could be because those were the years we were controlled by the runaway spending of the Democratic Congress Common.
What would you want the Congress to do? Stay on track with Obama, Reid and Pelosi (the Three Stooges)? Have you not heard the voters gave that crew a resounding thumping just a month ago today?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Dec 2, 2010, at 10:07 PM
Commonsensematters wrote:
"Seems like the do nothing GOP is on track again to put their petty political desires ahead of what the American people hired them to do."
I'm amused when the people who didn't vote for the people that were voted in tell us what they were voted in to do.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 2, 2010, at 10:25 PM
uh,contract on america. trickle down ecnomics. voo-doo economics. i'm ok,your ok.
-- Posted by workingdude on Thu, Dec 2, 2010, at 8:13 PM
Union propaganda.
Let me ask this:
What about the Unemployment extension? You know, for the people that have been drawing 2 years already. The Dem's blame the Republicans right? Read further into it. The Republicans said it is OK with them but the money has the come from some other spending program such as the high speed rail. The Dem's said no way. That money is earmarked for union labor to buy there support. Now you know why. It was all smoke and mirrors.
Why weren't there millions of jobs created in 2010, or 2009, or 2008, or 2007 etc.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Dec 2, 2010, at 8:42 PM
That is when Democrats took over Congress.
Well got to get to bed. Have to take candy away from the liberals tomorrow. Man they are so easy.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Dec 2, 2010, at 10:30 PM
Well, some good may come from the recent election after all.
-- Posted by voyager on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 5:29 AM
"...what they were voted in to do."
Someone seems to be missing the point entirely. The intent of the voters can be interpreted in any number of ways but there is general agreement that the priorities should be job creation and deficit reduction.
So rather than getting to work on those tasks, the GOP senators come out of the chute stating that we will continue to do nothing unless you first give us a tax break. (Must be just coincidental that most, if not all of the senators are in the $250,000 tax bracket.) Their only rationale is that, supposedly, the tax rate increase for upper few percent will stifle job creation. The democrats will still be in charge of the senate and the executive branch, as they have been, but somehow giving millionaires an extra $30,000 to $40,000 in 2011 will magically cause jobs to appear is highly unlikely. This is particularly the case since nothing has changed.
The one aspect of the GOP's effort to retain tax rates for millionaires that they conveniently never bring up is that a significant number of the benefactors are current or potential campaign contributors in 2012. Being able to say "we got you a tax break" seems to be a republican political strategy.
That it increases the current deficit by around $700 billion and the long term deficit by about $3.5 trillion is not important when it comes to politics. Never mind that their campaign promises centered on deficit reduction, being re-elected is more important, not to the American people, but apparently to the GOP.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 6:39 AM
So the democrats want to raise tax rates and the republicans don't. What else is new?
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 7:51 AM
CSM said
"The one aspect of the GOP's effort to retain tax rates for millionaires that they conveniently never bring up is that a significant number of the benefactors are current or potential campaign contributors in 2012. Being able to say "we got you a tax break" seems to be a republican political strategy."
How is this any different than the Democrats giving amnesty to illegal aliens? Being able to say "we got you amnesty" seems to be a democrat political strategy.
-- Posted by Mowrangler on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 8:30 AM
ugh I had to skip over the last several post because of this
'Dug' character...
Ok if you REALLY ran a business (as I have myself as well)
Lets say you produce widgets. Your monthly demand is 150,000 widgets and each employee can make 1,000 widgets a month. You have 150 employees (as well as 5 administrative staff).
Now if tax cuts to the rich do not expire, and your demand is still 150,000 per month. How does cutting 8 employees make sense?
Cutting employees only makes sense if you were already running a very inefficient business in which the higher taxes had nothing to do with except making you realize how inefficient you were.
Your statement is 100% false unless
a) you were running a bad business
or
b) unless you produce something that only the wealthy purchase. (this arguement is a neutral one overall anyway)
further more 'Dug'... I will offer you a simple way to look & see how false your statement is, as I have done to others on this forum in the past.
Go plot unemployment on a graph by year, then go graph top tax brackets on that same graph by year. You will find that they do not match at all. There is ZERO coorelation to higher top tax brackets & higher unemployment.
What you are saying will happen has never in the past 100 years been true... the economics hasn't changed.
You sir are wrong.
-- Posted by futile_rant on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 8:44 AM
Actually, futile, you could still produce the 150,000 per month with fewer employees by increasing their overtime and/or subbing out the production of the remaining widgets. But, that's probably not going to happen if the tax increases only take $300-$400 thousand out of his $2.6 million in profits. He'll probably either be happy with the remaining $2.2 million in profits, or he'll try to raise the price of his widgets by about $.25/widget to reinstate his profits (150,000 widgets/month X 12 months x $.25/widget = $450,000).
On the other hand, if the tax increase hit him at time when his profits are marginal, at best, then he may see fit to cut employees and raise overtime for the rest to maintain production and profitability. Ain't no sense being in business if you're losing money.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 8:58 AM
futile rant -- your response is futile. You couldn't possibly have run any business.
How do you make up those profits? A number of ways. First, with that many employees you could possibly trim 8 out of the stack and continue to produce 150,000 "textbook, theoretical" widgets.
OR you could raise your employees portion of their healthcare through higher premiums or deductibles (lowering your ins. rates) and significantly reducing their discretionary, spending income.
OR you could cancel the xmas party, all employee bonuses, reduce employee pay, cancel new equipment purchases (unless the dems continue the accelerated depreciation on new equipment purchases), get rid of company trucks, get rid of co. cell phones and make employees use their personal ones, ON AND ON...
OR you could cut 8 employess or any combination of the above. ALL of which take the money out of the economy and put more people on unemployment. Your party leader, Nancy Pelosi, said this week "unemployment benefits create jobs".
A poorly, badly run business would take the profit hit in the tail and eventually be out of business as they could never re-invest profits into growth.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 10:21 AM
Futile - forgot to address the "stats" you talk about. Here are some you might want to consider regarding unemployment:
2009 Obama Stimulus---9.6%
2003 Bush Tax Cuts-----5.7%
Net Jobs Gained or Lost 19 Months After Bush Tax Cuts and Obama Stimulus
2003 Bush Tax Cuts--Gained (plus) 2.0 Million
2009 Obama Stimulus--- Lost (minus) -2.9 Million ( 281,000 lost over the last 3 months).
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) U.S. Dept. of Labor
19 Month Comparison: Hispanic or Latino Unemployment
2009 Obama Stimulus--12.4%
2003 Bush Tax Cuts 6.6%
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) U.S. Dept. of Labor
19 Month Comparison: Teen Unemployment
2009 Obama Stimulus--26.0%
2003 Bush Tax Cuts----16.1%
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) U.S. Dept. of Labor
Cost To Taxpayers
2003 Bush Tax Cuts-------0
2009 Obama Stimulus---$862 billion
Source: Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
Avg. Cost To Individual "Net Income Taxpayers" Applied To Present Workforce
2003 Bush Tax Cuts--0
2009 Obama Stimulus--$9473
Source: Tax Foundation--Based on Statistics From The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 2008 Latest data available
Most recent data available lists 91 million "net income tax" payers
Tax Receipts To Government: Five Quarters Following Each
2003 Bush Tax Cuts (plus)---$203.8 billion
2009 Obama Stimulus (plus)---$143.7 billion
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) U.S. Dept. of Commerce
National Income and Product Accounts Tables
Section 3 Table 3.1. Government Current Receipts and Expenditures
Disposable Personal Income-Five Quarters Following Each
--------Per Capita Income (Every Man, Woman and Child)--------
2003 Bush Tax Cuts (Plus) +$897
2009 Obama Stimulus (Plus)+$229
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) U.S. Dept. of Commerce
National Income and Product Accounts Tables
Section 2 Table 2.1. Personal Income and Its Disposition
For a family of three Per Capita Income translates to $2691 under the Bush initiative and $687 under the Obama initiative.
Real GDP Average Growth Five Quarters Following Each
2009 Obama Stimulus (minus) - 0.24%
2003 Bush Tax Cuts (plus) + 3.6%
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) U.S. Dept. of Commerce
National Income and Product Accounts Tables
Section 1 Table 1.1.11. Real Gross Domestic Product...
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 10:28 AM
Hmmmmmm!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 10:37 AM
I never got a job from a "poor" person. If the gov. keeps on punishing the rich by higher taxes and more restrictions, who will we end up working for?
-- Posted by Airborne 95B on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 3:16 PM
If the gov. keeps on punishing the rich by higher taxes and more restrictions, who will we end up working for?
-- Posted by Airborne 95B on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 3:16 PM
Obama??
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 3:18 PM
Gov't needs to clean up their messes and balance their budget (through massive spending cuts) before talk of raising anyone's taxes.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 4:10 PM
DT
You got it!
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 4:41 PM
Dug
And today they announced 9.8% and underemployed at 17% while the community organizer went to Afghanistan to dodge reporters. The longest this has occurred since the Great Depression.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 5:45 PM
This won't get better until Obama quits his ideological, socialist experiment. I honestly believe the man doesn't understand, or worse doesn't care, what is going on. He'll be a multi-millionaire before it's all over.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 6:52 PM
The younger the president the higher the ambitions?
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 6:59 PM
Bill Ayers couldn't ruin the US with his bombs so he introduced Obama to the Democrats. He's getting the job done and the liberals think he is wonderful. Liberals are so easy to fool.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 7:04 PM
Regeret, The lack of response to my last post reveals a lot.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 7:10 PM
Oops, that was meant for the other thread
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 7:15 PM
After President Obama and the leaders of the Republican caucus met this week to discuss working together to solve America's problems, one may have been left with hope that finally something productive would be accomplished. Indeed, after the meeting the president and Republican leadership talked about compromise and working together for the good of the American people. Alas, the goodwill and spirit of cooperation expressed by Republicans turned into obstruction and claims of no compromise under any condition.
Republicans stated categorically that unless the tax cuts for the wealthy are made permanent, they would block every bit of legislation Democrats want to move forward. On Wednesday, Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said that nothing will be addressed until all the Bush-era tax cuts are extended; including and especially tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. Democrats propose and support extending the cuts for every American except for the extremely wealthy.
What that means is that Democrats want to continue tax cuts for 98% of the American people and allow the cuts to expire for the remaining 2%. That 2% includes millionaires and billionaires who will gain an average of $104,000 in cuts at the same time Republicans are blocking extending unemployment benefits for millions of Americans who lost their jobs to Republican sponsored outsourcing and the financial meltdown caused by deregulating financial institutions and banks at the hands of Republicans.
No matter how one assesses the current Republican obstructionist tactics in the legislature, it is nothing less than extortion, and it will affect working Americans as well as national security. Republicans are threatening to block a vote on the START treaty that will limit the nuclear arsenals of Russia as well as the United States.
Republicans are saying that extending the tax cuts for the rich will create jobs and stimulate the economy at a time when jobs are scarce and the economic future is looking bleaker every day. But Republicans do not mention that for the past 10 years when the wealthy have enjoyed lower taxes, job creation was anemic at best. Their argument that wealthy people drive job creation and increase business here in America is a lie, and still, Republicans repeat the same tired talking points as if their arguments are facts beyond a shadow of a doubt.
The American people who support extending the tax cuts for the wealthy are falling for the Reagan-era philosophy that when the wealthy increase their income, money 'trickles down' to the working and middle class. The trickle-down theory did not work during the Reagan years and has never proved to be anything more than a scam. Republicans do understand that the majority of Americans are not critical thinkers or they would not continue the same lie that when the wealthy prosper, America prospers. For Republicans and conservatives, the wealthy and corporations are America, and the working class and poor are a scourge.
If Americans don't see the Republican Party as the front line of the class war against 98% of the population they must be blind. It is curious why Mitch McConnell's constituents in Kentucky would support him when he wants to punish 98% of them to benefit the wealthiest 2%. McConnell has aligned himself with the wealthy class in their efforts to deprive the working middle-class of a decent wage and protections against outsourcing that McConnell supports, and now he is willing to hold unemployed people hostage until the wealthy get a permanent tax cut. It should be noted that if the wealthy tax cuts expire, they will see a tax increase of 3% that they will mitigate with deductions that only the wealthy enjoy.
Republicans have a habit of never talking about the middle class in America because they could not care less about working Americans. Their only focus is preserving the obscene wealth for their elite donors, and they lie to Americans that Democrats are raising everyone's taxes. Democrats have been very clear that they want to extend tax relief for every American except the wealthiest taxpayers who have enjoyed lower taxes for 10 years and created no jobs. The tax cuts for the wealthy have to expire because they were never funded, and Republicans want to continue that process permanently at a cost to Americans of $700 billion a year. For the party that lays exclusive claim to fiscal responsibility, Republicans belie that fact when they insist on increasing the deficit just so their wealthy donors can have a 3% tax cut in perpetuity without funding.
Democrats and President Obama must make their case to the American people that they are working for 98% of Americans by extending their tax cuts. It is disgusting to watch one Republican after another pontificate on the merits of extending the tax cuts for the wealthy as a means to create jobs and spur economic growth when they blocked jobs bills, small business loan assistance, and legislation to curb outsourcing Americans' jobs. They are disingenuous at best, and lying pigs in reality.
Republicans are holding Americans hostage to increase the wealth of those who do not need more wealth. They are extortionists who are willing to endanger national security by blocking ratification of the START treaty, unemployment benefits, and climate legislation unless they are paid off by extending tax cuts for the rich. It is time to call the Republicans what they really are; criminal extortionists and killers of the working middle class.
-- Posted by D49F11 on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 9:41 PM
Republicans are holding Americans hostage to increase the wealth of those who do not need more wealth.
-- Posted by D49F11 on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 9:41 PM
More liberal wealth envy/green eyed jealousy. The Republican said they would vote for the unemployment extension if the Democrats would cut spending to do it. They wouldn't.
If they end the tax cuts then end the EIC that came with it. No sense in giving people money back they never paid. But oh no we cant do that. Right?
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 10:02 PM
More liberal wealth envy/green eyed jealousy. The Republican said they would vote for the unemployment extension if the Democrats would cut spending to do it. They wouldn't.
If they end the tax cuts then end the EIC that came with it. No sense in giving people money back they never paid. But oh no we cant do that. Right?
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 10:02 PM
Regret to inform U that Republicans also promised the American People that they would cut the national dept between 1994 and 2006 and they broke that promise, they increased it by record rates and left the cap celling many time... why should we believe them now?
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me! In addition, I do not know how you came to the conclusion that I am "envy/green eyed jealousy" when my spouse and I are millionaires and are in the top 2%. Once again you ***-U-me the FAUX facts.
-- Posted by D49F11 on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 10:17 PM
That was *ass_U_me...........
-- Posted by D49F11 on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 10:18 PM
D49,
I would be much more inclined to believe your millionaire story and the top 2% bracket if I heard it elsewhere.
I have noticed you liked to name drop earlier.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 11:11 PM
-- Posted by D49F11 on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 9:41 PM
D49
I have been suspecting for some time that your long winded rants were not of your own making. While I only checked this one, posted by you at 9:41 pm... I find it was written and published in Politicususa as of today and it was written under the heading and name listed below.
'Democrats Should Stand Tall Against Republican Tax Cut Extortionists
Posted on December 3, 2010 by Rmuse'
The nice name for this is Plagiarism I believe.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 11:36 PM
Dug,
Clinton raised taxes on the rich, unemployment went down... Bush cut taxes in 2003, but when he left office unemployment was much higher. Go back to 1913... Post every tax raise/cut with unemployment. You will find there is NO COORELATION. I can't keep doing the homework for your lazy indocrinated conservatives.
Sure a company may cut benefits if their taxes are raised a bit, but it doesn't make them cut the work force. and you are completely wrong when you say "all of which take the money out of the economy " where did the money go? did they roll it up and smoke it? hopefully they didnt inhale. That money is still in the economy. Sure it may not be right that someone else gets to spend it, I agree with you on that, but that money is still in the economy, thus no jobs are lost.
-- Posted by futile_rant on Sat, Dec 4, 2010, at 3:29 AM
Well my spouse and I are also millionaires, maybe multimillionaires, own three homes and don't even work, see how easy it is to be rich.
-- Posted by Acronym on Sat, Dec 4, 2010, at 7:47 AM
futile says" Sure a company may cut benefits if their taxes are raised a bit, but it doesn't make them cut the work force. and you are completely wrong when you say "all of which take the money out of the economy " where did the money go?" They DO cut the work force, all the time.
You have pointed out the huge difference between big government liberals and smaller government conservatives. The money, my friend, went to higher taxes -- to the government. The worst, most inefficient system in the U.S.
Obviously you ignored my entire post with statistic after statistic proof that to turn the U.S. economy around you need to keep taxes lower and quit gov't spending. By the way, Clinton did NOT start getting the deficit down until Republicans took over congress. If only we could have gotten the Senate this time too!
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sat, Dec 4, 2010, at 9:14 AM
Once again you ***-U-me the FAUX facts.
-- Posted by D49F11 on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 10:17 PM
Your use of the word "FAUX" says it all. You're just another limp wrist liberal.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sat, Dec 4, 2010, at 10:00 AM
Regrets,
You might add, who gets their talking points from a liberal blog.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Dec 4, 2010, at 10:05 AM
I think I remember a change in reporting and classification of unemployed during Clinton that resulted in lower numbers.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Dec 4, 2010, at 10:58 AM
Futile Rant wrote:
"Clinton raised taxes on the rich, unemployment went down... Bush cut taxes in 2003, but when he left office unemployment was much higher."
Actually, President Clinton and the Democrat in Congress cut taxes on the wealthy when they repealed, retroactively, the disastrous 'luxury tax' that President Bush signed. That was the one that broke his 'read my lips' pledge. The Democrats don't like to talk about that one much, since that was the one chance they had to enact their 'soak the rich' agenda wholly and completely, and it failed miserably.
They didn't even make any fanfare about repealing it, they just quietly passed the bill and got rid of the thing. No signing ceremony, no press conference. Just a stroke of the pen.
"Regret to inform U that Republicans also promised the American People that they would cut the national dept between 1994 and 2006 and they broke that promise..."
Actually, they promised to cut the budget deficit, which they did - actually eliminating it at the end of the century. Then we were attacked, the economy took a hit, and suddenly the concept of a 'peace dividend' disappeared.
Even so, the deficit was on its way back down until Nancy Pelosi took the gavel in 2007. The first trillion-plus dollar deficit occured on her watch.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Dec 4, 2010, at 12:00 PM
1949 up tax bracket: 82.13%, unemp: 7.9%
1951 up tax bracket: 91.00% unemp 3.5%
no big jump in unemployment there
1967 up tax braket: 70% unemp: 3.8%
1968 up tax braket 75.25% unemp 3.7%
no big jump in unemployment there
1968 up tax bracket 75.25% unemp 3.7%
1969 up tax bracket 77.00% unemp 3.6%
no jump in unemployment there
1969 up tax bracket 77.00% unemp 3.6%
1970 up tax bracket 71.25% unemp 4.9%
what taxes down unemployment up?
1970 up tax bracket 71.25% unemp 4.9%
1975 up tax bracket 70.00% unemp 8.8%
Wait this isn't going the way conservs want it?
1981 up tax bracket 70% unemp 7.9%
1982 up tax bracket 50% unemp 10.8%
lower taxes higher unemployment again
1986 up tax bracket 50% unemp 7.0%
1992 up tax bracket 31% unemp 7.6%
comment redundant
1992 up tax bracket 31% unemp 7.6%
1993 up tax bracket 39.6% unemployment fell consistantly to 3.9% by 2000
2000 up tax bracket 39.6% unemp 3.9%
since up tax bracket ~35% unemployment has only be higher
...
again this is NO coorelation to higher upper tax brackets and unemployment. You conservatives were indoctrinated with this.
-- Posted by futile_rant on Sat, Dec 4, 2010, at 3:18 PM
And it goes on and on and on, who's fault, name calling, Rep's fault, Dem's fault,blah blah. Was it not the Republican Congress that enacted the Bush Tax Cuts to start with??? Did they not vote for them to expire Jan 1 2011?? You can't call that Democrats raising taxes when it was set up by the Republicans to end this way. Why didn't they make the cuts permanent to begain with? Shows how little I know, so please don't respond by calling me names.
-- Posted by exmissourian on Sat, Dec 4, 2010, at 6:34 PM
"Why didn't they make the cuts permanent to begain with?"
They didn't make them permanent since the Republicans knew very well that had they not put in a "cut off" date, the deficits would have gone through the roof. This is still the case, but it seems that the Republicans would rather line their pockets and those of their contributors, rather than do what's right for the American people.
The lower tax rate for the top 2% did not create jobs in the 2006 through 2010, so why should this start in 2011.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Dec 4, 2010, at 7:04 PM
Wheels
I knew Limbaughs from Brownwood way back in the day. Never heard of Hindbaughs. Heard of Hindmns. I have both those books too. Also Limbaughs from Sturdivant. Brownwood was a thriving little town when I lived there and now I don't even recognize it when I go back. Sturdivant is dead too. I guess when they took out the railroad, things dried up. And lets not forget Greenbrier.
-- Posted by exmissourian on Sat, Dec 4, 2010, at 7:49 PM
Exmissourian,
I was trying to find out something on the Hindbaughs for someone else. We were trying to find where they may be buried. They seemed to have just disappeared, but then that was not that unusual a hundred or so years ago. The elder Hindbaughs died somewhere near Zalma around 1900, but they may have been buried in a family plot somewhere with no stone.
Yes the area is full of those small towns that have all but disappeared. Besides, the ones you mentioned there is Gypsy, Arbor, Lakeview, Winchester, Dongola, etc. etc. I would have loved to see Brownwood in it's heyday. When I was there about 3 or 4 years ago, it appeared to be almost deserted. I have been in small towns all over the midwest and it is much the same. Looking at the buildings in some of those places, I think to myself, there was money here once, someone built these buildings. What happened?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Dec 4, 2010, at 8:30 PM
Looks like Obama is making it even more expensive. But I still don't see him cutting that freaking expensive rail system. That would pay for a lot of unemployment checks.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sat, Dec 4, 2010, at 9:52 PM
This is still the case, but it seems that the Republicans would rather line their pockets and those of their contributors, rather than do what's right for the American people.
The lower tax rate for the top 2% did not create jobs in the 2006 through 2010, so why should this start in 2011.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Dec 4, 2010, at 7:04 PM
What about the EIC? It was the trade off for the cuts back then so it needs to go away also. I mean do right for the American people.
BTW...Wasn't 2006 when Barney Frank, Reid, Pelosi and the other liberal moon bats took over. Then there was that Obama guy the put the icing on the cake in 08. Many of them will be gone in 2011 so I say chances are things will look better.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sat, Dec 4, 2010, at 10:05 PM
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sat, Dec 4, 2010, at 10:24 PM
All those greedy rich people either inhereted their money or stole it from the poor people. Right?
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Dec 5, 2010, at 1:17 AM
Wheels
Being into genealogy couldn't resist looking for the Hindbaugh's. There was a William Hindbough born in 1890 in Bollinger county, died 1926 in Scott county, buried in New Hamburg Cemetery. Wife was Zena and Father was Thomas.
-- Posted by exmissourian on Sun, Dec 5, 2010, at 9:26 AM
ExMissourian,
That one they have. I was able to find that particular branche's family baptisms and the burial of children in Bollinger County, along with the Baptism of William, who was a convert. This happened at St. Anthony's Church in Glennon.
It is William's parents that the Great Grandaughter is trying to find the burial location of. They were supposed to have died in the Zalma area somewhere, leaving several children as orphans, including William, who were apparently wards of the court and split up and placed with different families.
Not having a direct family connection, while I have some few notes on the family, I do not know a whole lot, just trying to help a friend of a friend, I told them I would put out a few feelers.
Thank you for your effort. Should you have any questions on your own family that I might help with, I would try. Most of my information centers around the Dutch and German communities of Leopold and Glennon, which were Catholic communities for the most part, and trying to concentrate on the 1856 to 1900 era, except for immediate family.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Dec 5, 2010, at 9:57 AM
futile rant - your sources? You sight none. Huffington Post? Keith Olberman? Moveon.org?
How about the "Congressional Budget Office" or "U.S. Commerce Department" or the "U.S. Department of Labor" like mine?
Where did you dream this stuff up?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Dec 5, 2010, at 11:41 AM
Probably the Ralph Hindbaugh in the 1900 census of Bollinger county is a possible brother to William. Ralph, according to the census was born 1888 and was living with Samuel Virgin. I think the township was Liberty which was around the Sturdivant/Swinton area. I had a book of all Bollinger county cemeteries which I donated to the library, but will go check in it tomorrow.
-- Posted by exmissourian on Sun, Dec 5, 2010, at 11:47 AM
Because of the juvenile antics that started this thread...you ALL know this is NOT what our Country needs!
-- Posted by Theorist on Sun, Dec 5, 2010, at 7:45 AM
So we need to get in line and accept socialism?
Cant arm wrestle girls. The main reason is I would hate to be beat by one.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Dec 5, 2010, at 12:43 PM
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Dec 5, 2010, at 12:45 PM
I'm with you Regrets.
The Theorists of the world would like to see the Lame Duck/Dead Duck Democrats visit some more of their failed deficient programs on us before they are out of here!
They are in denial that Nov 2 happened.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Dec 5, 2010, at 2:32 PM
Exmissourian
Are you talking about the Gone But Not Forgotten book? I have a copy and have not found anything on them
Thanks.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Dec 5, 2010, at 2:40 PM
Wheels
Yep thats the one. I'm guessing the cemetery is the Virgin Cemetery near Zalma. If you check out findagrave.com there's a history of the cemetery, and at one time the land it's on belonged to a Nanch Layne. I think William Hindbaugh's mother was a Lane. The cemetery is full of Virgins, and Borders and a lot of unmarked graves with just field stones. Thats the most likely place they are buried. Good Luck and it's been fun hunting with you.
-- Posted by exmissourian on Sun, Dec 5, 2010, at 4:01 PM
unemployment rates are posted facts, same with income brackets. To say I faked them is you being lazy. It would take me longer to fake them than to get the real info. You could look them up in 15 seconds yourself to see if they were legit... which they are.
As I said you are indoctrinated to the idea that higher taxes causes higher unemployment. History proves that isn't true.
-- Posted by futile_rant on Sun, Dec 5, 2010, at 8:52 PM
I didn't see anything about the tax rates. I did notice when Clinton change the reporting numbers to make it look better than it was.
All the Dem's had to do was cut spending on one of their spending sprees and those unemployment checks would be coming next year. They also wanted people to take a small pay cut and accept a job but that is just wrong isn't it.
And what about those EIC payments? Shouldn't they disappear also.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Dec 5, 2010, at 9:50 PM
Regrets,
If they are to extend the unemployment checks at all. It needs to be done on decreasing scale. One where those available jobs that the unemployed are too proud to take, would look good to them.
I personally feel that no paying job is too lowly for an unemployed person to do. Ever clean the rest rooms in a service station as part of your job? I did!
Today, while we were at a Christmas Party for the grandkids, my daughter ran into a former classmate, who she invited to attend the Granddaughter's upcoming play. The tickets were free. He said he could not come because he is working lots of overtime 60 hours per week plus. She told him she thought there was a recession going on. He said his company has decided they have the work now, may not later, and it is cheaper to pay the overtime than worry about the cost of benefits and pay to new employees. Plus maybe having to let them go in the future.
I can tell you from experience, a well run company pays attention to the costs incurred by having your rates for unemployment insurance go up when you habitially lay off employees.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Dec 5, 2010, at 10:43 PM
futile - you're too lazy to post your references like me. If you google your posts then give the reference. Why should I confirm your supposed "facts". Talk about lazy... Then you don't cite which facts are from what resource. I guess you skipped that debate class in high school?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Dec 6, 2010, at 7:03 AM
good lord you die hard conservatives are lazy.
finding historical tax rates taxes just a few seconds for any of a dozen sources
Have Wheels, I agree a large portion of people on unemployment could find a low paying job to match/beat their unemployment checks and are just being lazy. The problem a lot of people I see are having is the benefits like health insurance which they get to retain while unemployed but would lose if they picked up a low paying job (that would match their unemployment check)
-- Posted by futile_rant on Mon, Dec 6, 2010, at 7:09 AM
Rant
Were did you come up with your first chart? Looks like someone had cooked the info.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Dec 6, 2010, at 10:02 AM
rant we are far away from small comment at beginning, which is the politics republicans are using now to destabilize the federal government. i would suggest you bone up on your constitution and rights instead of listening to backwoods mentality politicians with their own agenda. wake up
-- Posted by happypappies on Mon, Dec 6, 2010, at 11:38 AM
which is the politics republicans are using now to destabilize the federal government.
-- Posted by happypappies on Mon, Dec 6, 2010, at 11:38 AM
I believe one could look upon what is happening is not destabilizing the govenment, but to the contrary, following the wishes of the majority of Americans... which is very simple, quit the damned spending that has been going on far too long.
My wish is they hold the Democrats feet to the fire and keep the Obama government from passing any more foolishness like Obamacare.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Dec 6, 2010, at 12:01 PM
backwoods mentality politicians with their own agenda. wake up
-- Posted by happypappies on Mon, Dec 6, 2010, at 11:38 AM
Your post reminds me of battle of Kings Mountain. They were wanting to clean out those backwoods people that wouldn't be sheep for the British.
The battle only lasted an hour. Ferguson was slain and his army wiped out of existence. It was the turning point of the war.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Dec 6, 2010, at 2:48 PM
When I see the "backwoods" comments it makes me think of some wet behind the ears city boy that would starve to death if they didn't have mother government to look over them.
It's a shame their parents didn't raise them to be self sufficient. The US would be in better shape if they would have.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Dec 6, 2010, at 4:32 PM
When I see the "backwoods" comments it makes me think of some wet behind the ears city boy that would starve to death if they didn't have mother government to look over them.
It's a shame their parents didn't raise them to be self sufficient. The US would be in better shape if they would have.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Dec 6, 2010, at 4:32 PM
Regret,
I think maybe the obvious contempt displayed for ordinary man has something to do with the superiority complex the far left liberals seem to be afflicted with. They are to be pitied!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Dec 6, 2010, at 5:33 PM
Wheels
If or when we have a major power outage in the Midwest or some other calamity they say within 7 days people will be coming out of the city to get what they can to survive. Those people will commit violence to get food water etc. They have lived with momma government holding their hands since they were born and that is all they know.
Now take a dumb old country boy that those people would call a "hick". He has a garden and his food is put up for the long term. He can hunt and fish to get meat and live like a king. Sooner or later the "smart" people will try to take away his stash of food because they are so "smart". That will be when they meet Mr. Remington.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Dec 6, 2010, at 8:40 PM
Regret,
I grew up in Bollinger County with some of the finest "Hicks" Missouri has to offer, and there was no question about it, in that day and age we were pretty much at survival mode.
Sometimes wonder if even the youth from those areas are truly prepared for hard times. They all have four wheel drive pickups, we were lucky to have a vehicle with four wheels with tires that would hold air. I remember during WW II when a trip to town was thoroughly considered before making it, the rationing stamps needed to buy gas for the month, plus the condition of the tires and the questionable ability to buy new ones even if you could find the money.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Dec 6, 2010, at 9:16 PM
Why is it so quiet on here this evening about the compromise reached on tax rates between Obama and the Republicans?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Dec 6, 2010, at 9:18 PM
I'm glad to see the tax cuts extended. The market seems to welcome the news. I've not had time to peruse the whole agreement, so I'm not sure how I feel about the overall package.
The Republicans worked with the President to reach the agreement, while the party of 'No' (a.k.a. the Democrats) are reportedly unhappy with the President for doing so. He must be doing something right! He appears to have found his spine, and is standing up to his own party. He may yet earn the title of 'President', now that he doesn't have Nancy Pelosi pulling his strings.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Dec 7, 2010, at 8:59 AM
Shap
Good post
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Dec 7, 2010, at 11:17 AM
Theorist,
I expected no less. You can't pull yourself to give this President any credit for making the right moves. No matter what he does, you'll find fault with it. You don't think for yourself, you only repeat what you read in the Huffington Post and on Air America Radio.
I find it curious that, for all that talk about bi-partisanship and the President and the Republicans getting together for the good of the country, you're so quick to pooh-pooh it when it actually happens.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Dec 7, 2010, at 12:23 PM
Theorist,
You keep blaming republicans. The president, senate and house are all STILL in complete democrat party control and have been all year.
Why didn't Obama/Dem Congress deal with this before the election? They wanted to LIE to voters and wait until now to raise taxes. You actually vote for these people? Can you not actually see the deception? Then the republicans took over the house -- OOOOPS!
Your party still owns 2/3 of the government and have all the votes they need to do whatever they want for the next 10 days. Obama is dealing in the "real world". You aren't. Don't blame republicans.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Dec 7, 2010, at 12:46 PM
Just the contrary Shapley...I think he buckled and gave into the tantrum throwing and pouting toddlers. Will wait to see, but I think this was a mistake. Of course, I don't believe in trickle down...
-- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Dec 7, 2010, at 12:03 PM
A lot of the Democrat were against it also.
Remember when Obama said the Republicans can ride the bus but it will be in the back seats?
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Dec 7, 2010, at 12:54 PM
Theorist is an Independant... cause she says so.
Lordy, Lordy, I would hate to see her comments if she were a Left Wing Democrat.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Dec 7, 2010, at 1:12 PM
I guess she forgot about the Democrat blocking legislation when they took the majority causing the meltdown we are in now.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Dec 7, 2010, at 1:38 PM
Feeling a little down today are we Theorist?
Your Socialistic agenda take a little hit yesterday?
Well just for your information, the legislators you so condescendingly referred to as "tantrum throwing and pouting toddlers" reflect the view of the majority of Americans. Remember when you were so proud of the majority that your boy duped into electing him President. How soon you forget.
Sorry if I still "infuriate" you as you said many months ago.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Dec 7, 2010, at 1:49 PM
Shapley
Want to run for an office? I think we need you.
A partner of mine says he met you about 17 years ago at Carbondale. He saw one of your posts and told me about you and said you are the real thing. He met you one time but still remembers you. For him to remember you after 17 years you must have made an impression.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Dec 7, 2010, at 2:09 PM
Willy...He already did, I think he lost...
-- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Dec 7, 2010, at 2:18 PM
No I just use common sense. After my stroke I quit dreaming. Life is short. You can only save the ones that want saving.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Dec 7, 2010, at 2:32 PM
We_Regret_To_Inform_You wrote:
"Want to run for an office? I think we need you."
Thanks, but no thanks. I ran once, and came in second. I learned enough about politics to know that I don't want to spend my life doing it. :)
I did meet a lot of nice people on the campaign trail, though. I'm glad to know I'm not completely forgotten.
I used to call in on the old KZIM morning show "The Talk of Cape", back when Carol Keeler was on there. I was somewhat of a regular, way back then. After Carol moved to St. Louis, they cut the show down in length, and then got rid of it completely. I remember back when it first started, a friend of mine used to call in and state some point, and then he'd call back later pretending to be someone else, and disagree with his earlier position. They probably knew what has going on, but I think they were just happy to have the calls. Those were some fun times!
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Dec 7, 2010, at 3:03 PM
Wheels, I am honored that you hang on my every word...
-- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Dec 7, 2010, at 2:18 PM
Nay Theorist... don't flatter yourself. I just keep a check on you to make sure you are still full of it, like your gauge indicates.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Dec 7, 2010, at 3:17 PM
I don't think the ink is yet dry on the legislation agreed to vocally by the president or congress. This could put the president in the position of having to run next time on a raise taxes on middle class platform.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Dec 7, 2010, at 3:46 PM
We_Regret_To_Inform_U wrote:
"A partner of mine says he met you about 17 years ago at Carbondale."
Well, tell him 'Hello' from me!
I spoke at a few events in Carbondale, and also had an endorsement interview at the _Southern Illionisan_. I didn't get the endorsement, but they did have nice things to say about me.
I spoke to the Young Republicans at the College, and did a 'meet the candidates' forum there. I think I was the only one in our three-way race that showed up, as the incumbent and the Libertarian did not make it, as I recall. It was a pleasant forum, but I was called a 'radical' by someone.
I think it was because of my Second Amendment position. Someone was railing about the need to keep AK-47s out of the hands of kids or some such, and I pointed out that the AK-47 was a selective-fire fully-automatic firearm and, as such, had been tightly regulated since the 1930s. If they were talking about the AK-S, which is the semi-automatic version of the AK-47, then they were talking about a firearm that was functionally no differnt than any semi-automatic hunting firearm, except for the cosmetics. Besides, I pointed out, being as we were in Illinois a Firearms Owners Identification Card was required for firearms and ammunition purchases, and FOID Cards were not issued to kids, so it was a bit of a meaningless point. For that, I was called a radical, I believe.
From that point on, I have been proud to be called a radical, as long as I am a free radical.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Dec 7, 2010, at 4:17 PM
Shapley
I dont blame you.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Dec 7, 2010, at 4:17 PM
People want to blame the guns instead of society and how it got to that point. I blame lack of lack of family values, single parent households, and a government that is the enabler.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Dec 7, 2010, at 4:24 PM
Remember when Obama said the Republicans can ride the bus but it will be in the back seats?
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Dec 7, 2010, at 12:54 PM
Now the moron is on the evening news making statements like "normally he does not deal with hostage takers".
He has got to be one of the dumbest politicians I have ever seen. And I bet he will continue to wonder why he has a problem getting bipartisan support on anything.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Dec 7, 2010, at 5:43 PM
For 21 million americans, the tax package is moot. One thing that is missing is a fix to the AMT. A family with 2 kids, perhaps refinanced their home loan to pay off credit cards or send a kid to college, or whatever...will get a $3000 surprise this April when they figure out they have to pay AMT. I have emailed congressmen on this topic to ask if an AMT fix is being considered a week ago. The only reply I got was "we'll look into it".
-- Posted by Beaker on Tue, Dec 7, 2010, at 9:49 PM
I have no idea what you are talking about....
I was referring to Shapley running for office in Southern Illinois...as he stated, he lost.
After reading his comments in his 4:17 post, I am glad he isn't currently in office!
-- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Dec 8, 2010, at 9:54 AM
Hmmm!
And you have no idea what Regrets was talking about........ What did Shapley say that would make him a bad choice for office? Besides him being a Republican I mean.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Dec 8, 2010, at 10:04 AM
The catch 22 is that people that truely believe Washinton D.C. is not the entity to cure all woes also have little interest in being a part of it.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Dec 8, 2010, at 10:34 AM
Old John,
That's exactly what I found when I was in politics. There are 102 counties in the State of Illinois. By my count, I was one of only two Republican Party County Chairmen that were not employees of the government. Their main focus was to ensure that the government kept hiring workers, so that the could continue to build their power base by filling those position. The Democrats, naturally, wanted the same, so the only real debate was over who got to fill the positions.
The Rutan Decision had been handed down prior to my becoming County Chairman, which hampered the Governor's ability to fill positions through patronage. The party's focus was on overturning the decision. Filling patronage jobs was the prime focus of every meeting. Any hint at shifting jobs away from government was met with disdain.
Now, as Republicans, they wanted those jobs filled at the State level, whereas the Democrats wanted to expand federal power (and the jobs that go with that expansion) so that, at least, represented subsidiarity in some degree.
Even so, the idea of growing government is an imperative of both parties, and that is not likely to change because the people elected to office, and the ones who work hardest to get them elected, all have a vested interest in expanding governmental powers.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 8, 2010, at 11:04 AM
After reading his comments in his 4:17 post, I am glad he isn't currently in office!
-- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Dec 8, 2010, at 9:54 A
You got me ther. Like Rick says: I "mixuderstood" what you said. I will concentrate next time. My bad.......
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Dec 8, 2010, at 11:45 AM
Rick,
Thanks for the compliment.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 8, 2010, at 11:46 AM
Sorry but I left off the part about you being anti gun.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Dec 8, 2010, at 11:48 AM
According to most of your arguments, I don't know how America made it before the tax cuts were in place? I guess most companies just didn't make a profit? Keeping the current tax credits aren't enough incentive to create a significant impact on job creation. Organizations are still worried about the the new health care bill, THIS factor is more important that tax credits for high earners. But even these are less important than consumer spending.
What happens when you give tax breaks to manufactures? Fact: They automate and make upgrades, laying the low skilled jobs off, see Bush's Stimulus, or Google jobless recovery.
And what on earth does having a democratic majority have to do with companies not hiring people (2006-2010)? It went like this, "Bob, our company is doing great, widget sells are up and we need to increase productivity to keep up with demand." "Well, Theorist, I know we should but congress has a majority right now and I really want to stick it to the man, so for now we won't hire."
And EIC, really? I qualified for that in high school. You're worried about people that make, what, less than 15,000k a year? I am sure someone on here can look that up; I have to get back to work.
-- Posted by enufisenuf on Wed, Dec 8, 2010, at 11:59 AM
From what I hear, the death tax will be reinstated but at 35% down from 55%. The unemployment extension will not reinstate checks for those benifits that have ran out, but will be for the younger and new claims at a total estimated cost of $56 billion. The overall cost of this and not collecting more revenue is estimated at $800 billion.
Now if history is correct, tax rate increases dampen overall revenue collection in the long run.
So $800 billion savings to tax payers is not necessarily a $800 billion cost to government.
Shapely, If the sherif did a really good job in reducing crime, would he lay off deputys or seek more money to expand his department?
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Dec 8, 2010, at 12:39 PM
Old John wrote:
"Shapely, If the sherif did a really good job in reducing crime, would he lay off deputys or seek more money to expand his department?"
He would seek to expand his department. However, if his job is reducing crime, and he has successfully reduced, in theory he would now need a smaller department because there would be less crime to deal with, would there not?
Looking at the war on poverty, we've created massive governmental programmes to reduce poverty. They enjoyed early success (poverty rates went down after the 'war' was declared, although that actually continued a trend that had begun before the war began) so, by your logic, they should have expanded because of their success. By my logic, they should have shrunk since there was less poverty to combat after the inital successes. Your logic carried the day, because they grew in size.
in the 1970s, poverty rates again began to increase, until they reached levels roughly equal to the point they stood at the beginning of the 'war'. The response was to increase these programmes because 'more needed to be done'. The idea that they were becoming ineffective would not be considered.
Thus, these programmes grow in good times and in bad.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 8, 2010, at 12:52 PM
Shapely, I don't think maimonide's wisdom applies any more where poverty is concerned.
Tried and failed policies of government succeed in growing government and that is what is important to the progressive mindset.
Have you noticed that agencies advertise on radio for more clientel for the "We just want to help you" programs?
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Dec 8, 2010, at 1:37 PM
Span
If you look the decline started when the Democrats taking majority. We were recovering from 9-11 and stated having job growth again.
Congress is the one that can make or break the numbers.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Dec 8, 2010, at 1:52 PM
According to most of your arguments, I don't know how America made it before the tax cuts were in place?
-- Posted by enufisenuf on Wed, Dec 8, 2010, at 11:59 AM
Assuming you are correct and the tax cuts make no difference... maybe we need to let all of the Bush tax cuts expire, and along with that the EIC.
We can all prosper or suffer equally that way.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Dec 8, 2010, at 1:55 PM
The slickest move is when FDR confiscated the gold.
"After the government had confiscated the American peoples gold and made it illegal to own, the government then raised the official price of gold for international transactions from the current market price of $20.67 per troy ounce to $35 per troy ounce.
This in effect, devalued the U.S. dollar. Instantly, the "new black market" and international price of gold increased by a whopping +69% percent, while the value of the U.S. Dollar compared to gold (the world's reserve currency at that time) decreased by a staggering -69% percent, a further blow in the midst of a depression."
They can do it again.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Dec 8, 2010, at 2:06 PM
Regrets,
Roosevelt didn't get it all back I assure you. When they sold my Grandparents personal effects many years ago, there was Gold Coins found in a drawer and they were auctioned off in a family sale.
That particular Grandfather despised Roosevelt and his New Deal.
I'm glad he was able to go to his grave knowing he didn't give his few Gold Coins to Roosevelt.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Dec 8, 2010, at 2:14 PM
Private ownership of gold is legal now but the Emergency Banking Relief Act of 1933 was never repealed and the President still has the right to confiscate your gold.
It is a quick way to get money for votes. Look at California. The state's workers union pension is costing $40K for every family in the state. Don't worry. The Feds will bail them out and we will get the bill.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Dec 8, 2010, at 3:12 PM
Private ownership of gold is legal now but the Emergency Banking Relief Act of 1933 was never repealed and the President still has the right to confiscate your gold.
It is a quick way to get money for votes. Look at California. The state's workers union pension is costing $40K for every family in the state. Don't worry. The Feds will bail them out and we will get the bill.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Dec 8, 2010, at 3:12 PM
What do you want to bet it will be harder this time than it was the last. People are less submissive now than they were then. At least those with the ability to own anything to begin with.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Dec 8, 2010, at 3:36 PM
So what happens if the President confiscates the American peoples' gold?"
In 1812 the British burned the White House. In 2011 the American people burn it if Congress doesn't impeach and remove the President first.
-- Posted by voyager on Wed, Dec 8, 2010, at 3:53 PM
Spaniard wrote:
Wiffle, 9/11 ... did not cause a recession.
No, we were already in a recession on September 11, 2001.
This, from your own _Telegraph_ link:
"Only a year later can we begin to see just how important the reality check was. Revised figures out last week showed that the US was in recession for three successive quarters last year - longer and deeper than had been thought. 'The majority of 2001 was spent in recession. You have to go through this sort of catharsis. Many companies have to fail before you can say we're through the worst,' Batstone added.
The events of 11 September signalled the start of a new rationality on Wall Street. The utterances of former corporate cheerleaders, such as Jack Grubman, Salomon Smith Barney's star telecoms analyst, are now the subject of fraud investigations.
Economists go further. Many are now quietly suggesting that if 11 September hadn't happened America would not have recovered so quickly from its recession. 'On the one hand 11 September was the last thing the economy needed, but with hindsight it may well have accelerated the healing process, awful as it was. Talking about it from a purely economic standpoint, not from the moral or the political, it did bring forward much of the creative destruction that recessions wreak,' said Danny Gabay, economist with JP Morgan."
However, I disagree with your statement "... 9/11 barely affected the economy"
The economy was effectively shut down immediately after 9/11. The airline industry has never fully recovered, tourism ground to a halt for a while. My family and I went on vacation in 2002, and were greeted with "Thank you for traveling" placards at many tourist-related facilities. Hotels were still suffering in the Summer of 2002. The idea of the 'staycation' was being born (which enjoyed a resurgence during the gasoline price hikes of the mid 2000s').
Industry recovered but, as your linked article notes, they learned to live leaner and meaner. The good times stopped rollin' for a little while, and businesses had to come to grips with the fact that the times they were a' changin'. I can't say how much was due to 9/11, how much was due to events that followed (the war, the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, etc.), and how much was just the inevitable consequence of business boom-and-bust cycles. Steven Weber, in 1997, famously declared an end of the business cycle, yet we learned only three short years later that such was not the case.
It has long been suggested that wars boost the economy, in the short term, but that protracted wars become a drain on resources. It is likely that the 'war dividend' offset the more severe consequences of the 9/11 attacks, in the short term and that the recovery offset the long-term drain of the war, with the result of sluggish growth for the next six years.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 8, 2010, at 3:59 PM
Tourism Industry Fully Recovered From Effects Of 9/11/01 (2007 article)
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 8, 2010, at 4:35 PM
Rick,
That's true. Now it is the Democrats that are threatening to block the compromise measure. They're leaning on Ms. Pelosi to keep it from coming to the floor for a vote.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 8, 2010, at 4:48 PM
Wiffle, 9/11 barely affected the economy and it did not cause a recession.
-- Posted by Spaniard on Wed, Dec 8, 2010, at 3:25 PM
My business stalled until the next summer and only came back 75%. Mine and everyone that had a 401K portfolio took a major hit and took 3 years to come partially back. Two friends businesses went under and mine almost did.
You can show me all the links you want but I have books that will show different. To say the US recovered is way off. The next hit we had was Barney Frank's "there is no problem with Fanny and Freddie" bomb. That one took all the gains we had and sent them back down. Thank god I jumped on coins and metal a year ago. BTW I wish I would have kept the Ford stock.
Now I know you think I am whining but I am just stating facts. We never had a recovery but maybe now they will work together a little..
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Dec 8, 2010, at 6:26 PM
Harry Reid is trying to tack on something about on line gambling.
A lot of the democrats want to say they soaked the evil greedy rich people and made them pay. That is what gets them votes from the ones they need to keep poor so they can help 'em.
They are also trying to get support for an amnesty plan that gives illegals free college and more benefits.
The lame ducks are in a position to name their price and I suspect some are tempted.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Dec 8, 2010, at 6:47 PM
Please stand up for what you are. Be proud to be a liberal if your a liberal. Just as someone should stand up proudly and say they are conserative. Why make up excuses.
-- Posted by H20 on Wed, Dec 8, 2010, at 7:49 PM
H20, I'm too dumb to make up an excuse.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Dec 8, 2010, at 7:59 PM
Old John, Your safe....you don't pretend to be anything but you.
-- Posted by H20 on Thu, Dec 9, 2010, at 2:25 PM
I yam what I yam, and that's all what I yam.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 9, 2010, at 2:39 PM
Please stand up for what you are. Be proud to be a liberal if your a liberal. Just as someone should stand up proudly and say they are conserative. Why make up excuses.
-- Posted by H20 on Wed, Dec 8, 2010, at 7:49 PM
Being liberal is nothing to be proud of.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Dec 9, 2010, at 2:49 PM
It sounds to me like the President is defending his thinking by saying a raise in tax rates could drive up unemployment and send the economy downward. Imagine that.
The dems in opposition are trying to say not raising taxes will result in less revenue.
Actually the real threat is that too many new congressmen coming in before the old ones leave may be too heavy and cause D.C. to tip over and capsize!
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Dec 9, 2010, at 2:58 PM
The bickering and fighting needs to stop by both parties. We are in one hell of a shape and it is going to take all of us working together as americans to climb out of this mess we the people are in. The blue state red state liberal conservative can be tossed to the side because this is going to take all of us as americans to put our great country back on her feet.
-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Thu, Dec 9, 2010, at 6:41 PM
There was a thread a while back that brought up the subject of the blaring audio of TV and Radio comercials. I couldn't remember or find the thread so may I use this thread to report that our congress has done something of value recently. Legislation now prevents enhanced audio.
Now maybe I can nap in my favorite chair with the TV or Radio on without being jarred out of the chair with the latest loud mouth car salesman or be there big box store sale announcement.
I'm for toning down the sound effects of sirens in radio ads. I'm driving along and hear a siren, start looking around and realize the emergency vehicle is in the radio.
After that's fixed, we could muffle some of the political rhetoric from both sides. :)
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Dec 9, 2010, at 10:29 PM
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Dec 10, 2010, at 7:08 PM
81-19
That's the Senate vote in favour of extending the tax cuts.
I didn't realize there were that many Republicans in the Senate...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 15, 2010, at 2:40 PM
A lot of earmarks.
They are working to pass a spending resolution to keep the government going through 2011.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Dec 15, 2010, at 6:55 PM
81-19
That's the Senate vote in favour of extending the tax cuts.
I think that it might be the vote in favor of the compromise bill, which could be termed a second stimulus.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Dec 15, 2010, at 7:19 PM
Some media has used the term " the Obama tax cuts".
Reid implies he is ready to stay past the new year to get his way.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Dec 15, 2010, at 8:00 PM
Despite some attempted procedural blocks put up by Democrat opponents of the measure, the House has passed the Senate version of the tax measure, and it will now go to the President for a signature.
I am loathe to call it a 'tax cut bill', even though that is the common parlance. It does not actually cut taxes, but leaves them largely the same as they are now. It raises some, such as the Estate Tax, but the Democrats are calling it a 'tax cut' because it doesn't raise them as much as they want them raised.
I'm not good at speaking Washingtonspeak, in which measures that don't cut taxes are called tax cuts, measures that raise spending are called 'cost savings', and theft is called compassion.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Dec 17, 2010, at 9:50 AM
277-148 was the vote tally, 139 Democrats voted for the measure, along with 138 Republicans.
There were 112 Democrats and 36 Republicans voting in opposition.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Dec 17, 2010, at 9:55 AM
Enemy of the State wrote:
"As a scum sucking, low life, cancer on our economy, Goldman Sachs only paid a little less than $42 Million in taxes."
I don't know about you, but $42 million is a lot of money in my book.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Dec 17, 2010, at 9:56 AM
"In the 2011 House budget, the groups found that House Democrats requested 18,189 earmarks, which would cost the taxpayers a total of $51.7 billion, while House Republicans requested just 241 earmarks, for a total of $1 billion.
Where did those GOP earmark requests come from? Just four Republican lawmakers: South Carolina Rep. Henry Brown, who did not run for re-election this year; Louisiana Rep. Joseph Cao, who lost his bid for re-election; maverick Texas Rep. Ron Paul; and spending king Rep. Don Young of Alaska. The other Republican members of the House -- 174 of them -- requested a total of zero earmarks.
Talk to Republicans, and they'll say it would be nice if there were no earmark requests at all, but party leaders can't control everybody. "Brown's retiring, Cao's defeated, Paul is Paul and Young is Young," one GOP aide shrugs. Still, the bottom line is that the House GOP's nearly perfect renunciation of earmarks is striking. "For a voluntary moratorium, it was impressive that there were only four scofflaws," says Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense.
The Senate is a different story. But even though some Republicans are still seeking earmarks, Democrats are by far the bigger spenders. The watchdog groups found that Democrats requested 15,133 earmarks for 2011, for a total of $54.9 billion, while Republicans requested 5,352 earmarks, for a total of $22 billion.
If you look at the top 10 Senate earmarkers as measured by the total dollar value of earmarks requested, there are seven Democrats and three Republicans. (The leader of the pack is Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu, who requested $4.4 billion in earmarks.) The three Republicans are Sens. Roger Wicker, Sam Brownback and Thad Cochran. One of them, Brownback, is leaving the Senate, while the other two are from Mississippi, which is apparently earmark heaven.
Go down the list a bit more and the party differences are just as clear. Of the top 50 earmarkers in the Senate, 38 are Democrats and 12 are Republicans. And at the bottom of the list, you'll find that the lawmakers who requested few earmarks for relatively small amounts of money are mostly Republicans. And, of course, the senators who have sworn off earmarks entirely (and are trying to convince the rest of the Senate to go along) are Republicans, too."
Let's hope that those who've gotten the message don't lose it.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Dec 17, 2010, at 10:57 AM
Menu
Isn't this the kind of childish partisan politics we were trying to get rid of? Apparently we learned nothing.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101201/ap_on_go_co/us_democrats_lame_duck_politics
Replies (154)