mr_genius Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 (edited) even on his way out, blago in front of his house, still talking about how he's for the 'little guy' and even took a shot at GW Bush. Truly an archetype Democrat. I salute you, Rod Blagojevich. Edited January 30, 2009 by mr_genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 03:49 PM) i heard something about lowering the 10% tax bracket to 5% and the 15% to 10%. that could push the bill into bipartisan landslide territory. as far as cloture, i still think it would be a mistake to drag this out to a neccesary 60 vote. give the dems this bill if they want it IMO. That's a joke because no one in those two tax brackets actually pays any taxes. They get it all back with the deductions and the credits that fall into those brackets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 07:04 PM) That's a joke because no one in those two tax brackets actually pays any taxes. They get it all back with the deductions and the credits that fall into those brackets. hmm, i just looked at the tax bracket breakdown and thats probably true for most cases. i suppose it might help someone at the high end of the 15% http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm Edited January 30, 2009 by mr_genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Ive seen people $5,000 total (state-fed etc) in taxes on $30,000 income. If you are single with no dependents and are an independent contractor who has almost $0 expenses, you are not going to get many deductions or rebates. No one thinks about the single earners who have basically no write offs or deductions. Granted this is a small part of the population, but you cant just say no one does. But the maximum savings for the person could only be what $250? Oh and the tax system is graduated, so all of us would actually benefit. Basically saying that everyone who makes over 15% would be getting a $250 rebate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 09:08 PM) Ive seen people $5,000 total (state-fed etc) in taxes on $30,000 income. If you are single with no dependents and are an independent contractor who has almost $0 expenses, you are not going to get many deductions or rebates. No one thinks about the single earners who have basically no write offs or deductions. Granted this is a small part of the population, but you cant just say no one does. But the maximum savings for the person could only be what $250? Oh and the tax system is graduated, so all of us would actually benefit. Basically saying that everyone who makes over 15% would be getting a $250 rebate. Then you're a stupid independant contractor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Im not an accountant, Ive just seen the statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 11:11 PM) Im not an accountant, Ive just seen the statements. That's a fair answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 10:57 PM) Then you're a stupid independant contractor. Hey man, some independent contractors don't need an office or many supplies. Prostitutes, for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juddling Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 As Banyan would say...this is gold Jerry....gold!! Pelosi tries to explain how $330 million dollars allocated for STD prevention will stimulate the economy. I'm all for preventing STD's but come on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 QUOTE (juddling @ Jan 30, 2009 -> 09:18 AM) As Banyan would say...this is gold Jerry....gold!! Pelosi tries to explain how $330 million dollars allocated for STD prevention will stimulate the economy. I'm all for preventing STD's but come on. Yea, she wants "stimulus" all right. Dumb b****. I seriously hate her just about as bad as anyone in Washington. And before someone says I'm being sexist, Harry Reid is a dumb b**** too. Seriously, the Dems can't do any better for leaders of their parties? Obama's ok, I disagree with him, but at least he's intelligent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 30, 2009 -> 09:26 AM) Yea, she wants "stimulus" all right. Dumb b****. I seriously hate her just about as bad as anyone in Washington. And before someone says I'm being sexist, Harry Reid is a dumb b**** too. Seriously, the Dems can't do any better for leaders of their parties? Obama's ok, I disagree with him, but at least he's intelligent. I said that at the time they were chosen. The Dems shot themselves in both feet when they chose those two to run things in Congress, particularly Reid. There were better choices available. Heck, most of the caucus in both chambers would have been better choices. Reid is as scuzzy and dishonest as can be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 I don't think Pelosi is stupid, but she is hyperpartisan. She can't say or do anything without pointing fingers at or attempting to call out some Republican, somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 30, 2009 -> 09:52 AM) I don't think Pelosi is stupid, but she is hyperpartisan. She can't say or do anything without pointing fingers at or attempting to call out some Republican, somewhere. I don't think I said she was stupid (if I did, I misspoke), I said the CHOICE of her for that role was stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 30, 2009 -> 11:18 AM) I don't think I said she was stupid (if I did, I misspoke), I said the CHOICE of her for that role was stupid. Oh I know. I was just throwing my personal opinion out there as to my main reason for thinking she's ineffective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 QUOTE (juddling @ Jan 30, 2009 -> 07:18 AM) As Banyan would say...this is gold Jerry....gold!! Pelosi tries to explain how $330 million dollars allocated for STD prevention will stimulate the economy. I'm all for preventing STD's but come on. The government spends roughly what, $12 billion per year on health care fighting AIDS? That is money that could be easily employed elsewhere. There were some 56,000 or so new cases of AIDS reported in the country last year.. Current estimates say that new infections, not pre-existing ones, cost the country on an annual basis on the order of $50 billion dollars per year, in particular in lost productivity, which makes up about 75% of that total. Disease prevention = enhanced business productivity. Plus, it produces a much better gain than having the government pay people to dig holes and then fill them in again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 30, 2009 -> 10:53 AM) The government spends roughly what, $12 billion per year on health care fighting AIDS? That is money that could be easily employed elsewhere. There were some 56,000 or so new cases of AIDS reported in the country last year.. Current estimates say that new infections, not pre-existing ones, cost the country on an annual basis on the order of $50 billion dollars per year, in particular in lost productivity, which makes up about 75% of that total. Disease prevention = enhanced business productivity. Plus, it produces a much better gain than having the government pay people to dig holes and then fill them in again. I agree with some of your points, but, you could stretch almost any spending into something that could pay off in some way later. That doesn't make it a true economic stimulus. What you are actually encouraging, and which I at least partially agree with, is making changes to health care to make us more efficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 30, 2009 -> 09:42 AM) I agree with some of your points, but, you could stretch almost any spending into something that could pay off in some way later. That doesn't make it a true economic stimulus. If you believe Keynes...what makes it a true economic stimulus is that the government is going in to debt to pay for it. In a deflationary, recessionary environment, that's the key. That's where the Keynes quote that in this specific environment, the government should pay people to dig holes one day and fill them up the next day makes sense. Even very inefficient stimulii, like say, corporate tax cuts still provide a stimulus effect if they're employed through government spending in that specific environment. The question is then how effective each variety of stimulus is per dollar spent. That's a different question. Things that provide employment and increase efficiency in other ways can be particularly effective if they drive multiplication of the dollars spent through either people respending the money or other efficiencies that are created, which is the whole concept I was hitting on in the dem thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 30, 2009 -> 11:53 AM) If you believe Keynes...what makes it a true economic stimulus is that the government is going in to debt to pay for it. In a deflationary, recessionary environment, that's the key. That's where the Keynes quote that in this specific environment, the government should pay people to dig holes one day and fill them up the next day makes sense. Even very inefficient stimulii, like say, corporate tax cuts still provide a stimulus effect if they're employed through government spending in that specific environment. The question is then how effective each variety of stimulus is per dollar spent. That's a different question. Things that provide employment and increase efficiency in other ways can be particularly effective if they drive multiplication of the dollars spent through either people respending the money or other efficiencies that are created, which is the whole concept I was hitting on in the dem thread. Well, there's an awful lot of economists who don't... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 30, 2009 -> 09:55 AM) Well, there's an awful lot of economists who don't... "There are no atheists in foxholes and there are no libertarians in financial crises." -Last year's Nobel Prize winning economist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Wow. the RNC has NO idea who the want to chair the RNC. It's a neck and neck race between Michael Steele (a black man) and Katon Dawson (traces his political coming of age to the civil rights movement -- that is, opposition to 1960's busing policies). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Steele would be a good choice IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 30, 2009 -> 01:45 PM) Steele would be a good choice IMO. Blackwell just dropped out and endorsed Steele. Saul still has 31 votes and Leslie Sanchez seems to think Dawson has the inside edge if/when Saul drops out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 (edited) R5: Steele 79, Dawson 69, Saul Anuzis 20 Saul Anuzis bows out... no endorsement. Edited January 30, 2009 by Athomeboy_2000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 I hope Steele wins. Best person for the job IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jan 30, 2009 -> 02:49 PM) I hope Steele wins. Best person for the job IMO Steele just won 91-77. Edited January 30, 2009 by Athomeboy_2000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts