Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

So Barry is calling for an extension of his payroll tax cut. When Bush wanted to let us keep some of our own money and direct it into private investment accounts the libs were screaming that Bush wanted to destroy social security, put old people in the streets and let them starve, etc. The tax cut allowed us to keep 2% of our money last year and it has been extended for the first two months of this year. Now Barry wants it extended further. Do you ever see it being fully restored? The payroll tax cut impacts everyone, especially the poor. If the tax cut is eliminated isn't it a tax increase on the poor and middle class? But without that money the government will have less in the SS trust fund. Isn't that destroying social security? At least with Bush it would have been put into a savings account for people.

Can one of you good libs please explain why this is OK?

Because he's trying to get reelected.

Thus, he's smart.

Cap'n Cat wrote:Thus, he's smart.

Yep, because getting reelected is much more important than actually helping the country.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:Thus, he's smart.

Yep, because getting reelected is much more important than actually helping the country.

It would help the country compared to the alternatives presented to us by the Republican Party.

mainejeff wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Yep, because getting reelected is much more important than actually helping the country.

It would help the country compared to the alternatives presented to us by the Republican Party.

We could elect a tree stump and it would help the country more than 4 more years of this clown.

AZGrizFan wrote:

mainejeff wrote:
It would help the country compared to the alternatives presented to us by the Republican Party.

We could elect a tree stump and it would help the country more than 4 more years of this clown.

I don't agree with you.

Until the Republican Party abandons its total OBSESSION with religious/social issues.........it will NEVER be a good alternative to Democratic Party in governing this country.

mainejeff wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
We could elect a tree stump and it would help the country more than 4 more years of this clown.

I don't agree with you.

Until the Republican Party abandons its total OBSESSION with religious/social issues.........it will NEVER be a good alternative to Democratic Party in governing this country.

I Vote Communist.

Waiting...........

You're social security bennies are based on what you pay in- notice that FICA statement you get every year.

Since we've been paying less in for the last yr+, that's probably going to come out of what we get when we start receiving SS...

HI54UNI wrote:

Waiting...........

Almost 2 days since my original post. Come on you libs that trashed Bush, explain the difference!

mainejeff wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
We could elect a tree stump and it would help the country more than 4 more years of this clown.

I don't agree with you.

Until the Republican Party abandons its total OBSESSION with religious/social issues.........it will NEVER be a good alternative to Democratic Party in governing this country.

And until the Democratic Party gets an education on economics.......it will never be a good alternative to the Republican Party in governing this country.

grizzaholic wrote:

mainejeff wrote:
I don't agree with you.

Until the Republican Party abandons its total OBSESSION with religious/social issues.........it will NEVER be a good alternative to Democratic Party in governing this country.

I Vote Communist.

Communism is so 1950's. You should try Kalmunism.

CAA Flagship wrote:

mainejeff wrote:
I don't agree with you.

Until the Republican Party abandons its total OBSESSION with religious/social issues.........it will NEVER be a good alternative to Democratic Party in governing this country.

And until the Democratic Party gets an education on economics.......it will never be a good alternative to the Republican Party in governing this country.

Yeah, because regressive tax cuts, deregulation, and increased spending has worked so well for us.

BDKJMU wrote:You're social security bennies are based on what you pay in- notice that FICA statement you get every year.

Since we've been paying less in for the last yr+, that's probably going to come out of what we get when we start receiving SS...

The Democrats want to change the nature of the Social Security program. Hastening its' bankrupcy will more easily allow them to do just that. When it can no longer sustain itself, they will turn it into a "need-based" welfare program. Everyone will still pay into it but only the chosen few will receive any "benefits". Call me a cynic if you will but I'm thinking that maybe somewhere between 53% and 58% will qualify for those "benefits".

No one in Washington will say it - because it's political suicide - but you have to be a moron to not understand that taxes need to go up across the board.

bluehenbillk wrote:No one in Washington will say it - because it's political suicide - but you have to be a moron to not understand that taxes need to go up across the board.

Yes, with the way government is spending money these days. But how about less spending to eliminate, or at least curb, tax increases?

kalm wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:


I Vote Communist.

Communism is so 1950's. You should try Kalmunism.

bluehenbillk wrote:No one in Washington will say it - because it's political suicide - but you have to be a moron to not understand that taxes need to go up across the board.

No they don't. Spending needs to be reduced. You could take 100% of EVERYTHING the Forbes 400 richest Americans has and it won't even balance the budget for one year. More taxes won't solve anything.

HI54UNI wrote:

bluehenbillk wrote:No one in Washington will say it - because it's political suicide - but you have to be a moron to not understand that taxes need to go up across the board.

No they don't. Spending needs to be reduced. You could take 100% of EVERYTHING the Forbes 400 richest Americans has and it won't even balance the budget for one year. More taxes won't solve anything.

Exactly. Across the board means 100% of the voters (at least 100% that are employed) would have their taxes go up. And if pols do that, they'll likely get voted out of office.

HI54UNI wrote:

bluehenbillk wrote:No one in Washington will say it - because it's political suicide - but you have to be a moron to not understand that taxes need to go up across the board.

No they don't. Spending needs to be reduced. You could take 100% of EVERYTHING the Forbes 400 richest Americans has and it won't even balance the budget for one year. More taxes won't solve anything.

They're both a problem and those top 400 and a bunch of corporations haven't paid enough to deserve the riches they have accumulated.

mainejeff wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
We could elect a tree stump and it would help the country more than 4 more years of this clown.

I don't agree with you.

Until the Republican Party abandons its total OBSESSION with religious/social issues.........it will NEVER be a good alternative to Democratic Party in governing this country.

Yeah. Because with 20 years of Republican presidents since 1980 there's been SO many religious/social issues pushed through congress and signed into law, right?

kalm wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:

No they don't. Spending needs to be reduced. You could take 100% of EVERYTHING the Forbes 400 richest Americans has and it won't even balance the budget for one year. More taxes won't solve anything.

They're both a problem and those top 400 and a bunch of corporations haven't paid enough to deserve the riches they have accumulated.

The top 1% pays 37% of the tax burden. I think they're paying their fair share.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
They're both a problem and those top 400 and a bunch of corporations haven't paid enough to deserve the riches they have accumulated.

The top 1% pays 37% of the tax burden. I think they're paying their fair share.

We've been through this before, and trust me, I wish the rest were doing well enough in this economy to remove some of that burden. Maybe we should raise taxes on the bottom 99%.

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
The top 1% pays 37% of the tax burden. I think they're paying their fair share.

We've been through this before, and trust me, I wish the rest were doing well enough in this economy to remove some of that burden. Maybe we should raise taxes on the bottom 99%.

Maybe we should stop spending money like drunken sailors?