Score one for the voters
 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40710315...-capitol_hill/

The voters in November said that spending was out of control. so, an out of control spending bill just got yanked. Apparently, somebody got the message inside the Beltway.

Maybe old dogs can learn new tricks.

I wish they would learn their lesson but alas we know that won't happen.

Heck look at Kwamee, the more they dig, the deep the corruption. Its the same for all of washington...

I take it Kwamee is local talent?

Chas

Kwame Kilpatrick (D), former mayor of Detroit and most corrupt piece of crap politician on the face of the earth. Google him up and enjoy.

Dave

I'd like to think that this will actually make a difference, but I don't - yet. The earmarks are a fraction of 1% of the spending bill and they were inserted by the same hypocrites who voted against them in the end.

Thus far, this is all theater. Wait until it gets down to the real nut-cutting (i.e., defense spending and entitlements). Then we'll see how real this is.

PS - Don't hold your breath.

I agree - the realist in me is saying "wait and see." The optimist in me, however, is hopeful that someone is starting to "get it."

Me too. (crosses fingers)

One things for sure. Harry Reid didn't. He couldn't have looked more clueless when he pulled the bill from the Senate floor.

So they cut a single spending bill. I would have been far more impressed and actually pleased had they let the tax cuts expire.
Combine expiring tax cuts as well as reducing spending, particularly deficit spending, and I think we're getting somewhere.

LOL

Maybe you did not hear about the trillion we are borrowing from china to give the wealth some pocket change.

So, you'd prefer to increase tax obligations to individuals in a shaky economy, when many folks are already having difficulty paying their bills? I'm with you on the spending comments, however. Frankly, I think it would have been possible to get both spending cuts and tax reductions, but the Repubicans continue to demonstrate that they don't know how to negotiate.

Yes, we're borrowing at record rates to finance our out-of-control spending. It rather disgusting, actually. Not sure how that gives anyone other than the political class "pocket change".

So does this mean you support the trillion dollar give away to the rich or not?

absolutely

it is those not working that we need to worry about at times like this

?...sure they did.

What "give-away" are you talking about?

the latest, the tax cut fiasco that deficit worried cons have no problem financing through China

Hmmm, you better explain that interesting perspective to all the Dems who voted for it.

By the way, are we financing tax cuts, or the ever increasing appetite for our government to spend money it doesn't have on pork for special interests? These special interests who then pay lobbyists fat checks so that those lobbyists can turn around and make fat campaign contributions? When you're making your class warfare / class envy accusations, don't forget to include our rich and getting richer political class.

Will Rogers was right.:rolleyes:

I agree:

Will Rogers: "A fool and his money are soon elected."

Or "We have the finest government money can buy"

+1

qft

I have Obie sold out and I don't care how Mathews spins it.

BTW it is not a perspective it is a fact.

I agree that we have the best Congress that money can buy. The only problem is that they don't come cheap, and most folks can't afford them.

BTW, the pork makes up less than one percent of the budget. That's not pocket change, but it's very low on the causes of the budget deficit. My view is that the industrial military complex is the biggest beneficiary of government largess.

Regards,

D-Ray

Whell done! :D

Off topic:

Hey Painter. Where ya been?

Merry Christmas to you.

Back to our regularly scheduled programing.

If you say so.:rolleyes:

Merry Christmas to one and all. Much good health and happiness in the year ahead. :)

To the tune of nearly $800,000,000,000 every year, Don.

Dave

Oh, I dunno. There was a chart in our local paper today that showed that on average the new tax bill as agreed upon by the GOP and The Whitehouse would save taxpayers in the $200k to $500k bracket a whopping $1,800. And that it would cost those in the $500k to $1mil bracket $45 per annum, due to the reinstatement of the Estate Tax.(On average.)

Wooooeeeeee! Hold onto your hat, Nellie, were gonna create us some jobs now! YeeHaw!

I won't have to pay an extra $346 per annum. A whole $6.65 a week. Awesome! Now I can afford that summer villa in Tuscany! Thank you, Tea Party! If it hadn't been for you I would have ended up having to eat my dog.
And she's a good dog, I wouldn't have been happy about that.

What a f**kin' joke. You can stick your Bush Tax Cuts up your pooper for all I care.

Dave

The same to you Mam.

Oh, and by the way, taxes on those making less than $20k per year will rise slightly due to the expiration of the "Earned Income Credit"-----Man, the GOPs concern for the poor is heartwarming, gotta tell ya.

Dave

First, lets dispense with the idea that somehow this bill was somehow the result of the minority holding the majority hostage:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...ws_BlogsModule

"The bill goes to the White House for President Barack Obama's signature after the House overcame persistent liberal opposition and passed it with an unexpectedly large bipartisan majority of 277-148. The measure passed the Senate earlier in the week also with an overwhelming majority."

Everybody benefited to some extent. But the number of those not paying any taxes on an annual basis will decrease.

"Middle-income Americans fared best from the deal, due in large part to the new payroll-tax holiday, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. Those with the largest average gain in after-tax income, compared with current tax policies, earn between $35,000 and $64,000. They gain about $613, or 0.9% of their income.

Lower-income earners will benefit from continued expanded availability of the child credit and other breaks. But the substitution of Mr. Obama's Making Work Pay break—a tax subsidy for lower income people—with a payroll-tax holiday will be a net loser for them.

Higher-income people took the most cash from the deal. The average gain for households with $500,000 to $1 million in income was $3,859 compared to current tax levels. Democrats had wanted tax rates for this group to rise."

Glad you like it. :rolleyes:

The REAL two-fold challenge now begins. It will befall the new Congress to make the tax changes enacted this month more permanent, or to at least agree to and enact a long - term tax policy that makes personal and business decisions based on tax policy far more predictable. The other challenge will be to create an environment in Congress of true fiscal restraint. I won't hold my breath, but this HAS to happen.

I have to say that I am becoming more convinced that we need to jettison this tax code and replace it with something far simpler and with far fewer deductions and credits. It would be much more honest to bring in a predictable (for both payer and payee) revenue and to directly fund programs that congress deems socially desirable and economically feasible.

I also believe in a program by program review to determine what is redundant and what is effective. This would of course include the defense budget. That kind of review, however, would not be cheap - it would consume huge amounts of personnel hours.

We don't, however, need to start cutting with a chainsaw - more like a garden weeder - dig out the weeds and leave the healthy plants.

Regards,

D-Ray

The tax changes enacted this month will do NOTHING. They are a BULLSHIT waste of everybodies time.

$3,800 to a millionaire is pocket change, girlfriend. It will create ZERO jobs. ZERO.

You can take your lousy 0.9% and your party and SHOVE them both. They are both useless.

Dave

I love you too, Blue.

Wow, you and I can agree on this.

Where we may or may not agree is what the tax code should look like, or what the proper function of a tax code should be.

IMHO, it is impossible for a government to enact a tax system that influences economic or social policy without eroding individual freedom. Nor, do I think such a system is desirable for a host of reasons. Therefore, the simpler the system, and the more such a system encourages the efficient private sector use of capital, the better. A tax system that encourages economic growth, and is designed to benefit from that growth, is ideal.

The possible answer may be a system that balances taxes on both wealth creation and consumption, yet discourages neither. There will always be some level of tax that discourages a particular activity. However, if the threshold it both reasonable and predictable over the long term, demand will typically drive the ship. Currently, federal taxes on capital formation and utilization or high, and minimal on consumption. May be an area of opportunity.

Just a thought....

Well, I'll take my crummy .09% break...I can apply it towards the devaluation of my green stamps.

They're gonna get it one way or another.

Chas

If they wanted to both help people struggling and stimulate the economy they would have used this one trillion give away to send a check out to those on Social Security. This is the second year in a row their was no COLA and no one actually believes the price of goods the elderly and disabled use has not risen.

This was just a totally irresponsible act by hypocritical people.

OMG Whell, you realize that part of your argument is based upon some simplistic notion which was written on a cocktail napkin?

Perhaps Wanniski should have simplified it further as it appears to be beyond the grasp of so many!!!

Chas

BTW, I've just laid in a new stock of smart ass pills, just in case anyone wonders.