165 posts
Well, thank you government/Obama.
Fica taxes have gone up. That means for me, $864 dollars a year less income with just that one change. And at the same goddamn time our fucking government is spending money out the ass and we have no say in the matter. Not to mention the whole fucking lot of them are incompetent as a wet mop. >:(
Izzat the end of the payroll tax holiday? I don't remember you saying, "Noice!!! I got an extra G off my taxes!!" the last couple years...
"The fiscal cliff deal reached by the White House and Senate Republicans wouldnt extend the payroll-tax holiday. The biggest hit to 2013 growth appears likely to come from this tax breaks expiration on Monday.
The workers share of the Social Security payroll tax had been lowered by two percentage points for the past two years, to 4.2% from 6.2%, amounting to an annual income boost of $1,000 for a typical U.S. family earning $50,000 a year. It provided an increase of as much as $2,202 this year for a worker earning $110,100, the maximum wage subject to the payroll tax.
The end of the tax break would effectively raise taxes for all wage earners next year, a potential surprise for many despite the expected extension of most individual income-tax rates. That would mean the highest tax burdens since 2008 for most U.S. households, before the Obama administration pushed a tax credit in the 2009 stimulus law and the payroll-tax break"
It was good. But what a damn tax hike all the sudden. It's bullshit. The government could close down 1 useless program and gain way more than this will. Or, just cut how much money we give away every year by this much and leave us the fuck alone. How bout dat? That would be nice.
Goddam you complain a lot. You said you wanted MASSIVE reform. You were talking about stopping spending over the deficit limit completely. You want to talk about pain? You have no fucking idea how much more brutal the cuts you want in spending are, compared to this minor increase in your FICA taxes. You think it's bad to spend $864 more a year? $36 a paycheck? How about not having a job, no one around you having a job, no customers to sell to, inflation out of the ass, and complete societal collapse? You're perfectly willing to let that happen. But no, it's FICA taxes. Really?
Go ahead and find the one useless government program that's going to save us $120 billion, and then we'll talk.
Don't give money to Israel this year. Done.
How the hell can you not complain about the government right now? They got us into this crap and their history shows a big damn inability to handle money.
But your right. I do complain about government a lot because they handle money worse than a teenager.
And I could list a shit loads of programs to get rid of, Obamacare to start with. Thats gonna cost us way more than projected, just wait and see. The writings on the wall.
Bury your head in the sand and think all this money the middle class pays in to government to gonna fix the world if you want. Until government gets just a tad smarter, we'll never solve anything.
Leave Afghanistan. Completely leave Iraq. Bring a majority of all troops home. Bring all troops home from Germany and close all bases there. Don't spend money on upgrading the hummer. They are testing a new type vehicle right now and have purchased a bunch of them. Start a program of people to seek out and check on all people given government money from government programs and weed out the thousands that are scamming the system. That program could pay for itself in one day. Fire every congressman and senate person and replace them with non-political career type folks, as it was intended. That would make government efficient. I could go on all day and night with common sense fixes before we even get to the difficult stuff. Some of these things may not be program cuts, but all are and would be effective. Get the debt under control. Eliminating debt to china and the interest alone we pay would help also.
Can someone please go to the store and replace this record. I think it's broken...
NO ONE LIKES THE CURRENT FINANCIAL STATE OF THE COUNTRY, HOOK!!!
But the $864 bucks is a damn sight better for you than if they let the income taxes go up, too. Personally, I was hoping they'd show some sack and let the income tax rates go back up - that would lead to us starting to deal with our deficit and debt issues. The fucking tax rates should never have been extended in the first place (I don't know if you recall how pissed off I was when Obama signed off on that - just bad economic policy...)!
And as usual, the Democrats found a way to do what's best for no one trying to get a deal done with the Republitards (when any of them show they have a brain, I'll return to calling them by their actual name). I wish all of these assholes in Congress would just disappear. Seriously.
Except Elizabeth Warren. She's okay by me. And Bernie Sanders and anyone else who isn't completely beholden to corporate money (all five of them).
Tripper
Tripper — Jan 05, 2013Can someone please go to the store and replace this record. I think it's broken...
NO ONE LIKES THE CURRENT FINANCIAL STATE OF THE COUNTRY, HOOK!!!
But the $864 bucks is a damn sight better for you than if they let the income taxes go up, too. Personally, I was hoping they'd show some sack and let the income tax rates go back up - that would lead to us starting to deal with our deficit and debt issues. The fucking tax rates should never have been extended in the first place (I don't know if you recall how pissed off I was when Obama signed off on that - just bad economic policy...)!
And as usual, the Democrats found a way to do what's best for no one trying to get a deal done with the Republitards (when any of them show they have a brain, I'll return to calling them by their actual name). I wish all of these assholes in Congress would just disappear. Seriously.
Except Elizabeth Warren. She's okay by me. And Bernie Sanders and anyone else who isn't completely beholden to corporate money (all five of them).
Tripper
I just know that the amount of money the government takes in is spent, and then some. It's a damn shame the government can't handle money any better than that. The amount of money the government spends should be determined by how much money the government has. But they don't give a fuck about that. If they need more they just borrow it. Print it, raise taxes, whatever. That's a insult to us all. But I'll hush a while about this. Just pisses me off
US foreign aid to Israel is $3.1 billion a year. Good job eliminating that, you've now got $116.9 billion left to cut. And also, you managed to alienate the most powerful and vocal religious minority in the country, and for the next four years they're going to compare you unfavorably to Hitler at every chance they get.
Hookbender — Jan 06, 2013[quote author=Tripper link=1357320750/0#5 date=1357368945]Can someone please go to the store and replace this record. I think it's broken...
NO ONE LIKES THE CURRENT FINANCIAL STATE OF THE COUNTRY, HOOK!!!
But the $864 bucks is a damn sight better for you than if they let the income taxes go up, too. Personally, I was hoping they'd show some sack and let the income tax rates go back up - that would lead to us starting to deal with our deficit and debt issues. The fucking tax rates should never have been extended in the first place (I don't know if you recall how pissed off I was when Obama signed off on that - just bad economic policy...)!
And as usual, the Democrats found a way to do what's best for no one trying to get a deal done with the Republitards (when any of them show they have a brain, I'll return to calling them by their actual name). I wish all of these assholes in Congress would just disappear. Seriously.
Except Elizabeth Warren. She's okay by me. And Bernie Sanders and anyone else who isn't completely beholden to corporate money (all five of them).
Tripper
I just know that the amount of money the government takes in is spent, and then some. It's a damn shame the government can't handle money any better than that. The amount of money the government spends should be determined by how much money the government has. But they don't give a fuck about that. If they need more they just borrow it. Print it, raise taxes, whatever. That's a insult to us all. But I'll hush a while about this. Just pisses me off
Hate to sound like a broken record here, but Clinton ran a surplus. Then Bush came into office and slashed taxes, without slashing spending, and bye-bye surplus. You voted for him again after that. It makes sense that we run a deficit during the worst recession since 1929--revenues are down and you have to spend much more on the unemployed and hardest hit. What doesn't make sense is running a deficit in 2001, by choice. Yet when that deficit was run by choice, Bush got your vote a second time. It still makes it kind of hard for me to comprehend your arguments.
charger — Jan 08, 2013[quote author=Hookbender link=1357320750/0#6 date=1357486133][quote author=Tripper link=1357320750/0#5 date=1357368945]Can someone please go to the store and replace this record. I think it's broken...
NO ONE LIKES THE CURRENT FINANCIAL STATE OF THE COUNTRY, HOOK!!!
But the $864 bucks is a damn sight better for you than if they let the income taxes go up, too. Personally, I was hoping they'd show some sack and let the income tax rates go back up - that would lead to us starting to deal with our deficit and debt issues. The fucking tax rates should never have been extended in the first place (I don't know if you recall how pissed off I was when Obama signed off on that - just bad economic policy...)!
And as usual, the Democrats found a way to do what's best for no one trying to get a deal done with the Republitards (when any of them show they have a brain, I'll return to calling them by their actual name). I wish all of these assholes in Congress would just disappear. Seriously.
Except Elizabeth Warren. She's okay by me. And Bernie Sanders and anyone else who isn't completely beholden to corporate money (all five of them).
Tripper
I just know that the amount of money the government takes in is spent, and then some. It's a damn shame the government can't handle money any better than that. The amount of money the government spends should be determined by how much money the government has. But they don't give a fuck about that. If they need more they just borrow it. Print it, raise taxes, whatever. That's a insult to us all. But I'll hush a while about this. Just pisses me off
Hate to sound like a broken record here, but Clinton ran a surplus. Then Bush came into office and slashed taxes, without slashing spending, and bye-bye surplus. You voted for him again after that. It makes sense that we run a deficit during the worst recession since 1929--revenues are down and you have to spend much more on the unemployed and hardest hit. What doesn't make sense is running a deficit in 2001, by choice. Yet when that deficit was run by choice, Bush got your vote a second time. It still makes it kind of hard for me to comprehend your arguments.
I hate to sound like a broken record too. But Clinton ran us into a recession. Not so sure your example is up to par. If fact, it makes no sense at all.
charger — Jan 07, 2013US foreign aid to Israel is $3.1 billion a year. Good job eliminating that, you've now got $116.9 billion left to cut. And also, you managed to alienate the most powerful and vocal religious minority in the country, and for the next four years they're going to compare you unfavorably to Hitler at every chance they get.
Who gives a fuck? ;D
So you pick one thing out of the list and think that makes a point? ;D
I thought when you said, "don't give money to Israel this year. Done" that was your solution.
I hate to sound like a broken record too. But Clinton ran us into a recession. Not so sure your example is up to par. If fact, it makes no sense at all.
You are so far off base on this it's laughable. Do you really believe this? Because factually, you cannot back this up. At all.
Here's the wikipedia for ya.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clintonomics
And here are some choice "facts".
Clinton took the deficit of 4.7% of GDP in 1992 and turned it into a surplus of 2.4% of GDP in 2000. Federal spending fell to 18.4 percent of GDP in 2000 from 22.2 percent in 1992. Although Clinton raised taxes in 1993, he cut them in 1997.
The average unemployment rate of Democratic presidents, excluding Clinton, is currently about 4.3% while the average unemployment rate for Republican presidents is currently at about 6.1% (Burns and Taylor 390). Bill Clintons policy achieved a thirty year low in April 2000 with an unemployment rate of 3.9% (Burns and Taylor 390).
Clinton assumed office at the tail end of a recession, and the economic theories he utilized and implemented are claimed by his supporters to have eventually led to a strong recovery, though Clinton's opponents deny this.
The strategy was outlined in the following four points:
Establishing fiscal discipline and eventually eliminating the budget deficit
Keeping interest rates low and spurring private-sector investment
Eliminating protectionist tariffs
Investing in people through education and research
Clinton signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 into law. This act created a 36 percent to 39.6 income tax for high-income individuals in the top 1.2% of wage earners. Businesses were given an income tax rate of 35%. The cap was repealed on Medicare. The taxes were raised 4.3 cents per gallon on transportation fuels and the taxable portion of Social Security benefits were increased.
Ok. So if the recession at the end of Clintons term wasn't his fault, then the one at the end of Bush's term wasn't his fault. And, the President doesn't have much control over the economy, right?
Hows that? ;D
Fault...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
The expansion from 1991 to 2001 was the longest in history. Clinton was president for 8 years of that--no recessions.
The first recession of the 2000's ran from Q1-Q4 of 2002.
The Great Recession started in August of 2007.
Bush was president for over a year when the first recession of the 2000's occurred, and for 7 years for the second.
Considering that 9/11 occurred in the end of 2001, he gets some slack on that one. But the Great Recession? All his.
;D ;D ;D
Your killing me man. ;D
Hookbender — Jan 09, 2013 ;D ;D ;D
Your killing me man. ;D
Killing you... with facts.
charger — Jan 09, 2013[quote author=Hookbender link=1357320750/0#17 date=1357691690] ;D ;D ;D
Your killing me man. ;D
Killing you... with facts.
And better spelling. ;) ;D
Killing you... softly with my song.
charger — Jan 09, 2013[quote author=Hookbender link=1357320750/0#17 date=1357691690] ;D ;D ;D
Your killing me man. ;D
Killing you... with facts.
Yeah. That's it. Facts. ;D
charger — Jan 09, 2013Killing you... softly with my song.
..... song and DANCE. You left that out. ;D
Bitch you got hit in the mouth with the hammer of truth and got all yo teeth busted out. I can't believe you are trying to blame Clinton for the recession. You are on tard pills are something. You can squarely pin the recession on Bush and his idiot band of idiots. You got NOOOOOOOOOTHING to say factually. If you got some hardcore info, we'd all life to see it.
Hookbender — Jan 09, 2013[quote author=charger link=1357320750/0#21 date=1357764934]Killing you... softly with my song.
..... song and DANCE. You left that out. ;D
This might help show you a portion of Clinton's role.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Recession
Plenty of blame to go around. It wasn't all Clinton's fault, nor was it all Bush's fault.
heh heh I'm sure Paulson & buddies thank you for keeping the blame on the presidents...
Didja check that Bush vid I put up last? I liked the way he laid out the future unless we gave the banks etc 700 billion emergency bailout (turned into 16 trillion, so dey say) and then the future he predicted happened anyway.
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,1877351,00.html
...all the way to the bank!
Hookbender — Jan 16, 2013This might help show you a portion of Clinton's role.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Recession
Plenty of blame to go around. It wasn't all Clinton's fault, nor was it all Bush's fault.
The proper course of action would be to make the link you made BUT THEN quote the parts that you think support your point of view.
I'd LOVE to see you do that. You can't. So all you did was post an article. That doesn't support what you think.
How bout dis fo a star.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs3Z2Z2WMJk
;D
That supports what I think.
Gotta luv Cenk. What is it you think?
I did. It didn't mention you once...
Hookbender — Jan 16, 2013How bout dis fo a star.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs3Z2Z2WMJk
;D
That supports what I think.
Right because you've talked about derivatives all over the place. You also ignored the fact that the banking community was already engaged in terrible practices that Clinton TRIED to regulate and your boy Bush completely deregulated the SEC which allowed all hell to break loose. BTW that was all in your video that supports what you think...... :o
Fenderbender — Jan 17, 2013[quote author=Hookbender link=1357320750/25#32 date=1358379341]How bout dis fo a star.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs3Z2Z2WMJk
;D
That supports what I think.
Right because you've talked about derivatives all over the place. You also ignored the fact that the banking community was already engaged in terrible practices that Clinton TRIED to regulate and your boy Bush completely deregulated the SEC which allowed all hell to break loose. BTW that was all in your video that supports what you think...... :o
I talked about the recession. I said Clinton was partly to blame, as well as Bush. This is Clinton himself admitting his role. What the fuck else do you want as evidence? Shit....
Hookbender — Jan 17, 2013[quote author=Fenderbender link=1357320750/25#36 date=1358390684][quote author=Hookbender link=1357320750/25#32 date=1358379341]How bout dis fo a star.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs3Z2Z2WMJk
;D
That supports what I think.
Right because you've talked about derivatives all over the place. You also ignored the fact that the banking community was already engaged in terrible practices that Clinton TRIED to regulate and your boy Bush completely deregulated the SEC which allowed all hell to break loose. BTW that was all in your video that supports what you think...... :o
I talked about the recession. I said Clinton was partly to blame, as well as Bush. This is Clinton himself admitting his role. What the fuck else do you want as evidence? Shit....
YOU said the video is about what YOU think. I watch the video and it's talking about derivatives. YOU have never once talked about derivatives so I'm trying to understand how THAT video supports what you said at all.
You BLINDLY blamed Clinton. But you never once said it was his dealings with derivatives that started this ball into motion. YOU found something that sounds like what you think you want to hear. YOU think you gotta a real "Gotcha" All you've done is show that Bill admits he made a mistake.....but he then shows how Bush REALLY screwed it up. Clinton TRIED to regulate derivatives.....the mistake was he didn't regulate it enough, he got bad information from the gurus. THAT mistake is MINOR compared to the complete deregulation that your boy Bush brought in.
Clinton made a mistake. Bush fucked shit up. Big difference bro.
The Ayn Rand gurus...
They, or at least Greenspan, admitted the problem was greed. Even with deregulation it takes people willing to setup and orchestrate the con.
Success comes in many forms...
Fenderbender — Jan 17, 2013[quote author=Hookbender link=1357320750/25#38 date=1358429170][quote author=Fenderbender link=1357320750/25#36 date=1358390684][quote author=Hookbender link=1357320750/25#32 date=1358379341]How bout dis fo a star.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs3Z2Z2WMJk
;D
That supports what I think.
Right because you've talked about derivatives all over the place. You also ignored the fact that the banking community was already engaged in terrible practices that Clinton TRIED to regulate and your boy Bush completely deregulated the SEC which allowed all hell to break loose. BTW that was all in your video that supports what you think...... :o
I talked about the recession. I said Clinton was partly to blame, as well as Bush. This is Clinton himself admitting his role. What the fuck else do you want as evidence? Shit....
YOU said the video is about what YOU think. I watch the video and it's talking about derivatives. YOU have never once talked about derivatives so I'm trying to understand how THAT video supports what you said at all.
You BLINDLY blamed Clinton. But you never once said it was his dealings with derivatives that started this ball into motion. YOU found something that sounds like what you think you want to hear. YOU think you gotta a real "Gotcha" All you've done is show that Bill admits he made a mistake.....but he then shows how Bush REALLY screwed it up. Clinton TRIED to regulate derivatives.....the mistake was he didn't regulate it enough, he got bad information from the gurus. THAT mistake is MINOR compared to the complete deregulation that your boy Bush brought in.
Clinton made a mistake. Bush fucked shit up. Big difference bro.
Here's the facts, bro. At the end of Clintons term, we were in a recession. It had started, past tense. Why, in part because of the decisions Clinton made regarding derivatives. That was a key factor in the beginning of this mess. Shit was out of hand and Clinton made it worse with his decisions. You wanted evidence, I gave you a video of Clinton admitting fault. Was it all Clintons fault, no. Was it all Bush's fault, no. Did Bush make it worse, probably so. But they are clearly both at fault. Why do I think it was partly Clintons fault, for the same damn reason Clinton does.
I don't give a damn about "gotchas". You ask for evidence, you got it. This isn't debatable. Your guy is on film admitting his part. Me talking about derivatives wouldn't change the fact that Clinton was parly to blame for this mess. If you know so much about politics you should have known Clintons role in this. You just didn't think I knew what I was talking about and you got caught. End of story.
The recession that followed Billory had to do with tech/web bubble bursting.
Hey look, Clinton vs Bush, whatever... These are from the link you put up above:
President Clinton's tenure was characterized by economic prosperity and financial deregulation, which in many ways set the stage for the excesses of recent years. Among his biggest strokes of free-wheeling capitalism was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, a cornerstone of Depression-era regulation. He also signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which exempted credit-default swaps from regulation. In 1995 Clinton loosened housing rules by rewriting the Community Reinvestment Act, which put added pressure on banks to lend in low-income neighborhoods. It is the subject of heated political and scholarly debate whether any of these moves are to blame for our troubles, but they certainly played a role in creating a permissive lending environment.
From the start, Bush embraced a governing philosophy of deregulation. That trickled down to federal oversight agencies, which in turn eased off on banks and mortgage brokers. Bush did push early on for tighter controls over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but he failed to move Congress. After the Enron scandal, Bush backed and signed the aggressively regulatory Sarbanes-Oxley Act. But SEC head William Donaldson tried to boost regulation of mutual and hedge funds, he was blocked by Bush's advisers at the White House as well as other powerful Republicans and quit. Plus, let's face it, the meltdown happened on Bush's watch.
Now that they're outta the way, who profited?
BINGEWOOD — Jan 18, 2013The recession that followed Billory had to do with tech/web bubble bursting.
Hey look, Clinton vs Bush, whatever... These are from the link you put up above:
President Clinton's tenure was characterized by economic prosperity and financial deregulation, which in many ways set the stage for the excesses of recent years. Among his biggest strokes of free-wheeling capitalism was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, a cornerstone of Depression-era regulation. He also signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which exempted credit-default swaps from regulation. In 1995 Clinton loosened housing rules by rewriting the Community Reinvestment Act, which put added pressure on banks to lend in low-income neighborhoods. It is the subject of heated political and scholarly debate whether any of these moves are to blame for our troubles, but they certainly played a role in creating a permissive lending environment.
From the start, Bush embraced a governing philosophy of deregulation. That trickled down to federal oversight agencies, which in turn eased off on banks and mortgage brokers. Bush did push early on for tighter controls over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but he failed to move Congress. After the Enron scandal, Bush backed and signed the aggressively regulatory Sarbanes-Oxley Act. But SEC head William Donaldson tried to boost regulation of mutual and hedge funds, he was blocked by Bush's advisers at the White House as well as other powerful Republicans and quit. Plus, let's face it, the meltdown happened on Bush's watch.
Now that they're outta the way, who profited?
The tech/web thing was a small part, but nothing compared to the decision on derivatives.
You understand that exotics are like designer drugs, right?
Who setup, went through with, and profited from the con?
Do ya think the "free market" deserves some blame?
Listen to what Bush says in the emergency bailout video. What does he say happened?
Didja read the Rolling Stone article? It spells out how nothing has changed (along with why little lending has happened with the bailout).
Who fought regulation post-uber-recession? Who pushed deregulation in the first place?
I absolutely and categorically deny your postulate that we were in recession by the end of Clinton's term. Saying that proves only that you don't know what a recession is. The point stands that taxes went up and the economy flourished. You're now trying to tie taxes going up and the economy flourishing to deregulation of derivatives, which is kind of like trying to tie a bumper crop of oranges in Florida to unripe apples in Washington.
charger — Jan 19, 2013I absolutely and categorically deny your postulate that we were in recession by the end of Clinton's term. Saying that proves only that you don't know what a recession is. The point stands that taxes went up and the economy flourished. You're now trying to tie taxes going up and the economy flourishing to deregulation of derivatives, which is kind of like trying to tie a bumper crop of oranges in Florida to unripe apples in Washington.
I knew you would and know you do, which suggest to me that facts and truth are only important when you can bash republicans with some kind of failure. I'm not surprised at all.
I've given you facts to back up what I said and that ain't good enough. And since that isn't good enough, this discussion on my part is over. I can't have a discussion with a brick wall.
Just gonna point out that my "postulate" is one based on fact backed up by evidence you ignore, not assumed truth.
If facts and evidence are ruled void by you then why even participate in the discussion?
Can ya spell out what you think happened?
BINGEWOOD — Jan 20, 2013Can ya spell out what you think happened?
You're asking Hooky to spell? :D ;D