Jump to content

The Republican Thread


Rex Kickass

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 13.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • StrangeSox

    1498

  • Balta1701

    1480

  • southsider2k5

    1432

  • mr_genius

    991

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

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

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 by mr_genius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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.

 

:lolhitting :lolhitting

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

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

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

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

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.

 

:lolhitting :lolhitting

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

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

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

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...