- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 18, 2010 at 5:50 pm #705067
CarsonParticipantKeep in mind we are just now paying off WWI, we will be paying for Iraq for another 80 years….thats a real debt that never had an upside, unlike the stimulus which has at least built a few bridges…
October 18, 2010 at 7:11 pm #705068
dobroParticipantdhg- don’t try pointing out facts to a Rescumlican- it confuses them and throws them off their talking points- they’ll never believe there is a tax that went down when a Democrat is in office (BTW, my taxes went down last year too).
October 19, 2010 at 4:27 am #705069
JanSParticipantand check this out…look where his money is coming from..
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013196761_rossimoney19m.html?syndication=rss
October 19, 2010 at 8:54 am #705070
HMC RichParticipantHi kids, and socialists.
Progressives need capitalism so that they can redistribute the wealth as they see fit. Where would Progressives be if someone didn’t make wealth? Government usually doesn’t. You had better thank big and small business for that.
JanS, thanks for the link. Where is Pork Appropriations Committee chair Mrs. Murray’s list of donors? She must be in trouble if the Prez and Vice Prez are trying to help her in a land dominated by lefties.
And she cut 14 Billion……after passing what amounts to trillions. Bringing home the bacon. I’m all for recycling but her tennis shoes must be worn out. How about a nice new pair of Rossi shoes?
Redblack. You assume too much. I want everyone to pay a portion of the pie. Not 10%. Where did you come up with that nonsense? Do not infer anything please, because you will be wrong but you sound so good in your delivery. Bravo. You know, you may be right about a few things, (nobody can be wrong about everything) but would you ever admit a positive from the Republicans? I defend opportunity. Those fatcats want me or others to use their product. Some I can’t because it caters only to the rich. So what. That is not my problem. What is my problem is unethical people manipulating the system. I want government to help. Some day we might even get it right.
So why is Obama attacking the Chamber Of Commerce? Transparency? Yeah, right, just more politics plus more class warfare thrown in. Hey OBama, where did those donations from credit cards during your campaign come from? Even Hillary was miffed about that. There is a reason progressives and fabian socialists use a turtle as a symbol. The true Democrat is becoming extinct. I miss some of those guys. You are being sold a bill of goods.
DHG and Dobro, I am glad your taxes went down. What caused that? Was it local, state, or federal? I don’t know. Please tell us. Will they go up if the Bush tax cuts expire and the capital gains and other tax hikes Mr. Obama proposes are raised? I am truly curious and not trying to pick a fight. Hey, if something works AND revenues increase while taxes go down, would not most of us be for that? I like some partisan bickering but I do care about you guys and gals.
DHG, you hit the nail on the head about Republicans and fiscal responsibility. They failed, hence the move to Democrats in 2006 and 2008. Unfortunately the term Fiscal Responsibility for the Democrats usually only applies when 1) Republicans are in power and the debt rises and 2) whenever a Democratic Senator or Congressman comes home for re-election. The Rockefeller Republicans and their big tent are starting to get the boot. There’s a new player in town and are many million strong, who are starting to say, Stop Wasteful Government Spending. Yes, the Republicans blew and the party is changing.
But I have to point out again, if spending for W was bad why is O’s spending better?
I would have been for infrastructure spending by the Federal Government. But I was against most of the “successful” Obama initiatives which are costing us or are going to cost us bigtime.
Look, some of you know that the Federal Government is out of control. Some of you are vehemently against the War in Afghanistan and other Military actions. We all want a good economy. We and our politicians have to be honest with us. With Washington and somewhat Olympia so indebted to different lobbying interests, it is difficult to know who to trust.
I and others are saying vote whom you believe will be accountable. I favor the right and I am a much smaller voice in Seattle than my left leaning friends. So be it. See you at the Post Office when submitting your ballot(s).
Oh, Dobro, I was referring to a recent poll that had Obama a point above Mr. Bush. Yes, W’s final polls were dismal. Catlbob last year was touting Obama’s high poll numbers. Hasn’t been doing so much of that lately, has he? It’s the Independents who are switching not the Republicans. At least be honest when comparing numbers.
Oh Bob, what should the minimum wage be? I am all for a higher minimum wage if taxes on business are lowered. I have run a deep fat fryer, have you?
October 19, 2010 at 2:20 pm #705071
redblackParticipantrich, the new player in town is the counter-revolution. teabaggers are trying to preserve the status quo for the rich. sorry to have to inform you that supply-side economics is every bit the b.s. we told you it was 30 years ago.
when are you going to admit that? no, instead you want to dust off the memory of reagan and try to make it dance again, with tea bags pinned to its hat brim.
so if i’m mistaken about your 10% number, what percentage of tax receipts do you believe the top 10% should be paying? and if they, as a sector, or doing better than the bottom 90%, don’t you think they should help their fellow countrymen by shouldering a tax increase?
—
if w’s spending was bad… where the hell were you “fiscal conservatives” when he doubled to national debt in 5 or 6 years? yeah, you admit it now, but why were you silent then? you didn’t use the opportunity to “vote the bums out” every 2 years back then, did you? and i’ll tell you why: like frank luntz and rush limbaugh, et al, you were rejoicing that – finally! – they were truly destroying the federal government and democracy-for-all with it. w’s spending was all on bombs and tax cuts.
why is obama’s spending better? because his stated plans involve long-term improvement for the country – not just the “supply” side – kind of like the new deal or WPA, only wimpier because of republican obstructionism. if he’s not exactly saying the right words or following through on every campaign promise, at least he’s speaking the right language to the working class and the poor.
and, no, i don’t believe the federal government is out of control. it’s the only thing protecting us from full-blown plutonomy and foreign business takeover right now, and it has been largely responsible for keeping debt-strapped states solvent during what has amounted to a depression for tens of millions.
October 19, 2010 at 7:21 pm #705072
JoBParticipantHmcrich…
The biggest problem with those “supply side ” economics you keep referring to but don’t seem to understand is that they aren’t played on a level playing field.. As played they give an unfair advantage to big international businesses while leaving the tax burden on small business and the workers they employ
That may be good for wall street but it sure isn’t doing much for America workers who have seen their standard of living rapidly erode.
October 19, 2010 at 7:50 pm #705073
dawsonctParticipantA million dollars spent on American infrastructure goes much further in creating a better America for all Americans than a million dollars spent on bombs, which either kill, or create lifetime enemies.
Republican politicians like the fear raised by continuous war, their big-money contributors like selling expensive weapons systems, which break down, are destroyed, or are quickly obsolete, so must be replaced with another multi-billion dollar system.
Democratic spending focuses on making better the lives of the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WHO CAN’T ALREADY PURCHASE EVERY COMFORT THEY DESIRE.
—
The super-wealthy don’t need our help retaining their wealth. If they are too stupid to hold the wealth which most of them have inherited (class mobility is extraordinarily rare in the US), then it is NOT incumbent on the rest of us to make certain they retain their estate in the Hamptons.
Those living in poverty, on the other hand, DO need and often deserve our help. Take some time to talk to the homeless. For the most part, these aren’t people who decided to drop out of society and live on the scraps and detritus they can find, it was usually forced on them because of medical problems, the loss of a manufacturing sector in our Nation, the loss of mental capacity brought on by the wars we have asked them to fight.
Certainly, theirs is a position to resent and fear; who wouldn’t prefer to live the life of the hyper-wealthy over that of the terminally destitute?
As one of America’s greatest humanitarians said, “the measure of a Nation is in how they protect their weakest and most helpless citizens,” It is not in how they coddle and pander to the already well-insulated.
—
IF the Republican Party ever moves back from their current neo-liberal position to one of less govt. intervention in both foreign AND domestic issues, while understanding the value of maintaining and nurturing a flourishing American middle class by providing them, us, with a functioning education, recreation (parks and play-fields), and transportation system, then they can be taken seriously again, but as long as they play the “foreverwar against the bogeyman” and the “God, Guns, and Gays” cards just to scare people into electing them in order to line their pockets and those of their friends, it is important to keep them on the sidelines.
October 20, 2010 at 5:15 am #705074
dobroParticipant“Oh, Dobro, I was referring to a recent poll that had Obama a point above Mr. Bush.”
Funny, you didn’t give any links or names of the poll you cited (like I did). For all I know, you just made it up. You still haven’t given any citations after mentioning it twice now.
“Yes, W’s final polls were dismal.”
You got that right. 22 per cent. (or “almost 47%” according to your math)
“Catlbob last year was touting Obama’s high poll numbers. Hasn’t been doing so much of that lately, has he?”
His poll numbers are in the same ballpark as Ronald Reagan at the same point in his term.
“At least be honest when comparing numbers.”
The numbers I used were backed up by legitimate sources that I cited links for, unlike your anecdotal “recent poll”. I don’t think you’re the guy to be talking about honesty, pal.
October 20, 2010 at 6:41 am #705075October 20, 2010 at 11:38 am #705076
HMC RichParticipantHey Dobro: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/08/cnntime-poll-was-bush-better-president-than-obama/ I was off by one point. How about that, pal? Trust me now? Have a nice day.
Oh Redblack. For the past two years the democratic party basically owned both houses of the congress. (Do I need to cite that to Dobro? ) Republican obstructionism? Pahh. The Republicans were and still are essentially powerless. It was fighting among Democrats that watered down certain bills. In fact most bi-partisanship came from Democrats siding with Republicans in NO votes. Why aren’t most Democrats proudly proclaiming how they voted instead of mudslinging and running away from Pork, Obamacare and other massive spending bills? All Boehner and McConnell could do is flap their lips and watch.
Really, passing 2300 page bills without reading them while Pelosi said “trust me”? Ridiculous. What if Republicans had done that?
What economic plan do you propose? Lets hear it. So far, I just see spend and spend. The Federal government is borrowing 37 cents on every dollar spent? How can you support that? Because it feels right or is meant to help the less fortunate? That is not reality.
That evil Bush guy caused the lowest wage earners to pay less in taxes. I guess he hated the little guy. I was against the Prescription drug plan but Democrats wanted twice as much spent. (Although just for fun I did defend it once on this blog just to be contrary).
Now, I said I would have supported infrastructure rebuilding. That is not really a huge concern for the current Executive Branch. I do not support wasteful temporary bandaids to larger problems that first Bush and then Obama pushed in the financial meltdown. Did unemployment stay below 8%? No. Has it gone down? No. Did the stimulus work, by most accounts no. Was healthcare really fixed? Probably not and it is already costing us. Did the unions benefit from the financial bailouts, Their unsustainable benefits have. Geez if Bush had taken over GM, cries of fascism would be resonating everywhere. Has Obama really dealt with entitlements? Not on your life.
And yes, where were the fiscally responsible Republicans? They were spending too much money just like their Democratic friends. They are getting booted. You are right, we who claim fiscal responsibility, We should have been more vocal and they were exorcised in 2006 and 2008, weren’t they. McCain was a joke but he wouldn’t have been bankrupting us (as much).
Little did people like me know that the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party would swoop in so quickly and start a new era of fiscal irresponsibility. I admit, I was surprised at what has transpired.
IT IS NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS JOB TO MANDATE HEALTH CARE. IT WILL BE FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It was meant to be dealt with by each individual state. Regulation is a different story. I want a health plan that involves the following. Children and Seniors, NO COST. 18 to 65, either a single payer system or true interstate access to health insurance. I must be evil. Giving free healthcare to some and making others pay.
OK Redblack, As far as tax rates, First I would see what the cost of government is. I would cut some spending and make cuts in some areas and kill some departments or agencies. I believe taxes would fall somewhere between 15 and 25 percent. I would abolish all loopholes. State and local taxes would take another 10 to 15%. Live within a budget. In fact I am more in favor of a higher state tax burden than federal. I believe local is better than national. I also believe that the government should not be entitled to more than 30% of anyones income. What do you propose?
Someone was bitching about the military. Under Kennedy Military spending was a whopping 42%, Reagan 22% and under Bush 17%. Over 50 years, Military spending has decreased from 42% to 17%. That means more money for other parts of the government. Proof link for Dobro: http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/323.html down near the bottom of the article.
Jan, interesting video but it is flawed. I will admit debt went up in the Reagan and Bush years. But Congress reneged its pledge to keep spending down under Reagan because he phased in his tax cuts over 3 years, and W hardly vetoed any bill after 9/11. Plus Clinton had a relatively fiscally responsible congress which convinced him the era of big government is over. Supply side economics cannot work if too much is spent. So if that makes you right then you are right. But the Keynesian model is not better unless you like stagnant or little growth.
October 20, 2010 at 1:49 pm #705077
CarsonParticipantand in the end, its all about electing someone who we think best shares our personal values. Dino is anti-choice, anti-family and anti-consumer, we share very little in common. To make it even worse, Dino reminds me of a stereo-typical used car salesman, you know the type, you feel the need to take a shower with a Brillo pad after you meet him. eww
October 20, 2010 at 2:11 pm #705078
redblackParticipantyes, rich, we need to spend. by your admission, the private sector isn’t doing it – all over some unfounded fears that democrats are going to stifle the economy with taxes and regulations. and those who can afford to need to pay more to let the fed prime the pump.
high-speed rail is a good example. despite the fact that amtrak is a slow mode of travel and crumbling as a business model, private money could never – and would never – make a modern rail system happen. the government has to be the main investor in such a project – especially an interstate one – which will require some kind of taxpayer money. the fed will then hire contractors, who will hire subcontractors, and on down the line to workers, who will then have jobs, and therefore have money to buy goods and services. which will create demand for more goods and services, which will cause job and business growth.
on another tack, who will make the rail cars and engines? china? how about boeing? they already make technologically-advanced cylinders that travel at high speeds. the government can help them afford to retool some of their operations to make that happen. bingo! instant employment from government spending.
how is it paid back? more employees are now paying income taxes, which is a start. how about a VAT for all components of the train and rail line?
“what happens when the job is complete?” you ask.
when that rail line moves through a new town, it will create the need for restaurants, hotels, suppliers for the rail line, etc. which means service and construction jobs.
i dunno. just spitballing here. what, am i suddenly the labor secretary?
regarding your caps-locked health care comment: it is the federal government’s job to regulate interstate commerce, which the health care industry has become. i know you can’t buy insurance across state lines, but blue cross, aetna, wellpoint, etc. are massive national companies that are worth hundreds of billions. hell, some of them are worth more than most states’ revenues. how is any one state expected to regulate blue cross? until they are broken up, the federal government needs to protect us from bad practices through regulation.
and, btw, porkulus has funded over 15,000 infrastructure jobs already, and only about a third has been spent.
October 20, 2010 at 3:51 pm #705079
dobroParticipantThat’s great you managed to find a link on your third time thru of your RW talking point. Try that a little more often and you might gain some credibility.
I don’t have the patience of JoB or some others who actually go to the trouble of refuting your Fox news talking points one by one. You certainly dropped a load of them in that last post.
October 20, 2010 at 10:31 pm #705080
JoBParticipantOctober 21, 2010 at 5:01 am #705081
redblackParticipantit’s called a tag-team, jo, in the parlance of our times.
i got your back.
hell, the last time we watched silently, a downright moron got selected as president by his daddy’s supreme court appointments.
October 21, 2010 at 2:36 pm #705082
charlabobParticipantAnd today that downright moron is looking like an intellectual giant compared with some of the ants running as R’s.
October 22, 2010 at 1:52 am #705083
JoBParticipantIgnorance is not a virtue.
After the discussion I just endured I can’t tell you how grateful I am for the WSB living room..
Where I can almost always find someone intelligent to talk with
And where so many have my back
October 22, 2010 at 3:27 am #705084
SmittyParticipant“After the discussion I just endured I can’t tell you how grateful I am for the WSB living room..”
“And where so many have my back”
Left Wing Echo Chamber.
Branch out, JoB. Challenge your beliefs.
Don’t just visit WSB, listen to NPR and watch that Rachell Maddow fella.
Challenge you beliefs.
October 22, 2010 at 5:28 am #705085
JanSParticipantoh, Smitty…you are preaching to the choir…just a thought…;->
JoB..at least here you don’t have to hold your tongue…well, not much ;-)
oh, and Smitty…no jokes about Rachel Maddow’s gender…it has no place here, frankly. We do not make fun of people because of their sexual orientation…there’s too much of that being taught to our children..WE ARE BETTER THAN THAT !!!!!
October 22, 2010 at 10:38 am #705086
HMC RichParticipantNo, I was right. I was correct. Minimize and trash my post all you want. That is your right. I focused on one poll. You took it in a different direction. So be it. More information for us to digest. I forgive you.
Now, I readily admit I probably should have posted the link, but I have posted on here enough for most to know that I do not make claims lightly. But asking for proof is fine. Usually I use Mainstream media links to make points except for when I want to make a righty point to contrast leftist points.
Redblack, I never ever said the Federal Government should not spend our money. I just want them to be responsible in spending the top wage earners money (wink) and the rest of us peons hard earned cash. I think for quite a few issues, local makes more sense than national. Not always but I would prefer fighting or cajoling a politican in Seattle or Olympia instead of Washington.
Clarify for me please. Does not a VAT, tax each level of say a bullet train from raw materials through completion? I have heard a VAT hurts lower and middle class people.
I just do not agree with most of the progressive agenda, but I am glad for the highways we drive, certain consumer protections, our military and the average citizens who give way too much of themselves for our rights.
It takes all of us to keep this nation one of the best countries of opportunity. We can all contribute and I am fine giving a certain amount of my hard earned tax dollars to the city, county, state and federal government. All I am asking is that they be wise stewards with our tax dollars.
But the government cannot be our nanny or mommy. The government needs capital for all these agencies and programs. That is why every effort should be made to encourage business and encourage people to invest in us. We also need protections from scoundrels too. I am all for certain agencies policing our commerce and people within reason.
Our constitution and bill of rights were created to limit government. I don’t see that anymore. Who will spend less in DC? Rossi. And if he doesn’t he will need to get booted too.
October 22, 2010 at 1:25 pm #705087
SmittyParticipantOctober 22, 2010 at 1:29 pm #705088
redblackParticipantjust a couple quick points, rich. we don’t want a nanny or mommy. we want a government that helps its people stand up again if they fall on hard times. that’s a government i’ll gladly pay for before, say, using our military to pave the way for big business overseas. better payouts in the long run.
for example, what you see as legislation stifling international trade i see as a move to protect american jobs from the investor class. (the blue and no-collar kind, not just office people.)
and this is interesting: i would say that our constitution was created to impose self-rule (something that hadn’t happened since athenian democracy) and to shed tyranny by the aristocracy, royalty, and clergy.
like i asked you before, what is business doing to help the economy right now? throwing a tantrum because democrats are in power? gee, thanks.
i believe in capitalism and wish all entrepeneurs well in the market place of ideas, but business is not the model for government. government has far more responsibility to a vastly broader spectrum of people (i.e. all of us), not just the investor class. government does not exist solely to enable business, and it’s why senators and reps “bring home the bacon.”
it’s what they’re supposed to do, rich. if our senators don’t do that, they’ll get booted. even the stimulus-haters are taking stimulus money for their districts.
spend less? what, is rossi going to be magicaly appointed to some budgeting committee?
no, more like, “spend less time in DC” …playing golf… getting tesoro to fund his next campaign.
don’t start printing the $600 “stimulus” checks just yet.
October 22, 2010 at 1:34 pm #705089
redblackParticipantsmitty, i’m not better than that.
i’m worse.
most of the things i say about conservatives in the privacy of my home i would never utter within earshot of strangers or post on a neighborhood blog.
October 22, 2010 at 1:37 pm #705090
redblackParticipantrich, i believe a VAT would tax the sale of each component that adds value to the production of a bigger item, yes.
how would that help the average worker? not really at all, but it wouldn’t hurt, either. it would be one way to help fund a project like that much more quickly.
like i said, just spitballing. afaik, europe uses VAT.
October 22, 2010 at 4:34 pm #705091
JanSParticipantsmitty..you didn’t call Rachel Maddow a “dude”. I use that term , too. You called her a “fella”…there’s a difference – we understant what you meant…and don’t play dumb. You’re better than that!!!!
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.