DFW Mustang Forums banner

1 - 20 of 45 Posts

·
Token Troll
Joined
·
4,101 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
They win, they extend it. They lose, they let it die. In the meantime, play it up like the Republicans are the ones screwing it all up, in hopes of winning the November vote?
Senate Democrats huddled behind closed doors for one hour on Thursday trying to figure out what to do about the expiring Bush tax cuts. With no consensus emerging, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., decided to postpone a vote until after the election.

"Democrats believe we must permanently extend tax cuts for the middle-class before they expire at the end of the year, and we will.," Reid spkesman Jim Manley said in a written statement that blamed the GOP for the delay. "Democrats will not allow families in Nevada and across the country to suffer or be held hostage by Republicans who would rather give tax giveaways to millionaires and corporations that ship jobs overseas. We will come back in November and stay in session as long as it takes to get this done."

Sen Chris Dodd, D-CT, told reporters, "I think there are strong views being held. I, for one, subscribe to the notion that we ought to have a vote to extend the tax cuts for those that really need them and stop those for the ones who don't," Dodd said, but he quickly added, "There's a mixed view. Tax policy is not our strongest political argument with the national public. We know that. It's a divided caucus. That's not uncommon."

Several Democrats advocated for a delay, saying it is the one way to ensure politics does not enter into the equation. Republicans want to extend all of the tax cuts and are poised to pounce on any bill that falls short, as well as any member who does not support their position.


One senior Senate Democratic leadership aide told Fox that Republicans bear some of the blame, as well, "It's not as cut and dry as our people don't want to do them. We do. But people don't want to walk the plank if Republicans aren't going to play ball."

"It's just better that we wait. Nothing has to be done before the end of the year. It's clear, we're not for a $4 trillion tax loss. What we want is tax extensions for the middle class," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who said earlier that she could also support a compromise that woulid temporarily extend the top two tax brackets for two years.

Sen Bob Menendez, D-NJ. head of the Democrats' campaign effort, had no problem with a delay, either. "What's important is that the tax cuts get done by the end of the year and that the be effective for next year. That's what's important. Everything else is just semantics," Menendez concluded.

Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark, whose fellow Arkansan, Blanche Lincoln, is in an extremely tough fight for re-election against a former GOP congressman, said, "I think it's probably better to do it after, just because right now, everything is so political, and it's hard to get anything done without a lot of politics."

Lincoln, for her part, said she did not advocate any position in the closed door meeting but is fine with a delay. "I think it's reasonable and certainly important for the economy to be able to extend the low and middle income tax cuts. And I think if it's done responsibly, we can also extend the higher ones. But it has to be done responsibly," Lincoln said, adding, "I think it's abundantly clear to the American people that we're coming back after the election." When asked what "responsibly" meant, the senator demurred, "That's a good question. That's a good debate."

Sen Tom Carper, D-DE, said he wants a vote now, but he is willing to wait if it will help the more vulnerable members of his caucus. "I'm ready to vote now. But I think we should consider the golden rule, and that is to treat other people the way we would want to be treated, and that includes our colleagues."

Sen Patty Murray, D-Wash, among those vulnerable Democrats this cycle, blew by reporters saying only, "I want (tax cuts) done by the end of the year."

Democrats appear to be setting aside nearly a month or more for a lame duck session. Sen Byron Dorgan, D-ND, said Democrats are poised to return for "most of the month of December," and Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., added that one legislative week in November is now also on the calendar.
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2...ided-taxes-put-issue-until-after-election-day
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
18,368 Posts
Anything they do can (and probably will) be rescinded. They've got their political tit in a wringer and don't know whether to shit or go blind. This is getting fun and will only get better. The Titanic is sinking, and the rats are looking for a way to survive. Though there are no records, not many rats survived the Titanic.:approve:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
544 Posts
The problem with your entire the "titantic is sinking" scenario, is that in this case they are taking the entire damn ocean with them into the abyss.

Heck if the Earth were sucked into a wyrm hole now, we'd be hard pressed to see the sustained damage these morons are perpetrating on our freedoms.

The long term damage these "educated" fools are pressing onto the workers in this country will be the undoing of the entire free world.
 

·
NEOCON EDUCATOR
Joined
·
1,788 Posts
Anything they do can (and probably will) be rescinded. They've got their political tit in a wringer and don't know whether to shit or go blind. This is getting fun and will only get better. The Titanic is sinking, and the rats are looking for a way to survive. Though there are no records, not many rats survived the Titanic.:approve:

Are you talking about republicrats ?


:p
 

·
Bullet Sponge
Joined
·
3,142 Posts
No bullet, we're talking about the dems. You know, the ones who've been running things for the past 2 years and 4 years in Congress?
 

·
Canada is welcome here.
Joined
·
4,039 Posts
No bullet, we're talking about the dems. You know, the ones who've been running things for the past 2 years and 4 years in Congress?
What are you talking about? George Bush has been running things for the past two years, not the democrats. Obviously he is the one to blame.
 

·
NEOCON EDUCATOR
Joined
·
1,788 Posts
No bullet, we're talking about the dems. You know, the ones who've been running things for the past 2 years and 4 years in Congress?

Ah, so that explains this reversal.
 

Attachments

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,635 Posts
Just put that shit in your sig... seeing as how you like to bring it out every third post.

Brigning it out often doesn't make it any less wrong, though.
 

·
NEOCON EDUCATOR
Joined
·
1,788 Posts
Will someone please step up and try to prove these FACTS wrong ?


Or should I post the updated ones that will really make your eyes open ?


From Harding In 1921 to Bush in 2003, Democrats held the White House for 40 years, and Republicans for 42.5 years. During this time:
1. Democrats created 75,820,000 net new jobs and Republicans 36,440,000.
2. Per Year Average : Democrats = 1,825,200 new jobs vs. Republicans = 856,400 new jobs.
3. There was either a depression or a recession during the administrations of 6 of the 9 Republican presidents.
4. The DOW grew by 52% more under Democrats, and
5. The GDP grew by 26.4% more under Democrats.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
Ah, so that explains this reversal.
the problem with that chart and your belief that it shows Obama has helped is that you assume that it means we are gaining jobs. Quite the contrary it states the amount of Jobs lost. Well at some point you get down to the bone then its close shop or just run really lean.

I'll give you an example and question...how lean can you cut staff at a hotel till you can't lay anyone else off? You get down to minimum front desk and cleaning staff..then you have a minimum amount needed to run the hotel. At that point you start lowering your return on the investment or as you are seeing in Dallas start handing them back to the banks.

That chart doesn't say we have gained jobs. It just says we are to the point that companies can't cut anymore. So another way to look at it is if we are still loosing adding 465,000 to the unemployed ranks that means now we have businesses closing completely.

If you like Obama and the Dem's so much why don't you match what I pay in Taxes a year and then we can see how much you like them.

The consequences of not extending the Bush era tax cuts are I will let someone go to maintain my income and profitability. Sorry but trickle up don't do shit. I'm going to make sure I can live the same quality of life. Just means someone that works for me won't.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
18,368 Posts
Bottom line: Unemployment under Bush averaged 5.26 from '01-'08. His last year in office ('08), unemployment rate was 5.76.

Obama's rate was 9.26 in '09 and 9.65 for '10 so far.

I don't need pie charts and hocus-pocus to look up Department of Labot stats...

Poverty is the highest it's been in decades.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,635 Posts
Will someone please step up and try to prove these FACTS wrong ?


Or should I post the updated ones that will really make your eyes open ?


From Harding In 1921 to Bush in 2003, Democrats held the White House for 40 years, and Republicans for 42.5 years. During this time:
1. Democrats created 75,820,000 net new jobs and Republicans 36,440,000.
2. Per Year Average : Democrats = 1,825,200 new jobs vs. Republicans = 856,400 new jobs.
3. There was either a depression or a recession during the administrations of 6 of the 9 Republican presidents.
4. The DOW grew by 52% more under Democrats, and
5. The GDP grew by 26.4% more under Democrats.

I see alot of claims, but a noticeable lack of sources backing them up.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
18,368 Posts
the problem with that chart and your belief that it shows Obama has helped is that you assume that it means we are gaining jobs. Quite the contrary it states the amount of Jobs lost. Well at some point you get down to the bone then its close shop or just run really lean.

I'll give you an example and question...how lean can you cut staff at a hotel till you can't lay anyone else off? You get down to minimum front desk and cleaning staff..then you have a minimum amount needed to run the hotel. At that point you start lowering your return on the investment or as you are seeing in Dallas start handing them back to the banks.

That chart doesn't say we have gained jobs. It just says we are to the point that companies can't cut anymore. So another way to look at it is if we are still loosing adding 465,000 to the unemployed ranks that means now we have businesses closing completely.

If you like Obama and the Dem's so much why don't you match what I pay in Taxes a year and then we can see how much you like them.

The consequences of not extending the Bush era tax cuts are I will let someone go to maintain my income and profitability. Sorry but trickle up don't do shit. I'm going to make sure I can live the same quality of life. Just means someone that works for me won't.
Bullet is a zillionaire and pays billions in taxes, based on his market moves. :tounge-in-cheek:
 

·
NEOCON EDUCATOR
Joined
·
1,788 Posts
the problem with that chart and your belief that it shows Obama has helped is that you assume that it means we are gaining jobs. Quite the contrary it states the amount of Jobs lost. Well at some point you get down to the bone then its close shop or just run really lean.

I'll give you an example and question...how lean can you cut staff at a hotel till you can't lay anyone else off? You get down to minimum front desk and cleaning staff..then you have a minimum amount needed to run the hotel. At that point you start lowering your return on the investment or as you are seeing in Dallas start handing them back to the banks.

That chart doesn't say we have gained jobs. It just says we are to the point that companies can't cut anymore. So another way to look at it is if we are still loosing adding 465,000 to the unemployed ranks that means now we have businesses closing completely.

If you like Obama and the Dem's so much why don't you match what I pay in Taxes a year and then we can see how much you like them.

The consequences of not extending the Bush era tax cuts are I will let someone go to maintain my income and profitability. Sorry but trickle up don't do shit. I'm going to make sure I can live the same quality of life. Just means someone that works for me won't.

Can you read a simple chart ?


How many jobs were lost in nov and jan ?


:confused2:



And you are not going to let anyone go if having them employed is increasing your net profit unless you just enjoying making less money.


What you are arguing is that you have employees working for you right now that do not add anything to your net profit or who are actually reducing it.


Why would you keep them if they make you less profitable ?
 

·
NEOCON EDUCATOR
Joined
·
1,788 Posts
Bottom line: Unemployment under Bush averaged 5.26 from '01-'08. His last year in office ('08), unemployment rate was 5.76.

Obama's rate was 9.26 in '09 and 9.65 for '10 so far.

I don't need pie charts and hocus-pocus to look up Department of Labot stats...

Poverty is the highest it's been in decades.

FACT


It hit 7.7 % under bush in 2008.




Unemployment is a lagging indicator and the economy always turns before it bottoms out.

Maybe this will help you understand


http://economics.about.com/cs/businesscycles/a/economic_ind.htm
 

·
NEOCON EDUCATOR
Joined
·
1,788 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,635 Posts
Also, instead of a cropped picture showing your "5 Figure" day.... seeing as how you used that same pic about 2 months ago, you could post of a screenshot of your trading history proving your self proclaimed monicker of 'Market Guru'

That would be proof positive of your genius, seeing as the last 2 months or so of trading history can easily be paired with the historical market moves.

Until then, any credible person in Financial Services will assume you are a fool and a liar.
 

·
Num say'n? (tm)
Joined
·
5,702 Posts
Will someone please step up and try to prove these FACTS wrong ?


Or should I post the updated ones that will really make your eyes open ?


From Harding In 1921 to Bush in 2003, Democrats held the White House for 40 years, and Republicans for 42.5 years. During this time:
1. Democrats created 75,820,000 net new jobs and Republicans 36,440,000.
2. Per Year Average : Democrats = 1,825,200 new jobs vs. Republicans = 856,400 new jobs.
3. There was either a depression or a recession during the administrations of 6 of the 9 Republican presidents.
4. The DOW grew by 52% more under Democrats, and
5. The GDP grew by 26.4% more under Democrats.
You forgot that Obama is the new Messiah.

ps your sig needs more huge text and bright colors - They're widely known to appeal to people with short attention spans and low intelligence... you know, liberals.
 
1 - 20 of 45 Posts
Top