Sunday, 11/21/10, Pubic Square


Filed under The Public Square

19 responses to “Sunday, 11/21/10, Pubic Square

  1. tosmarttobegop

    This morning a commentator said, “ The Democratic has to oppose everything the Republicans want if they want to be back in control of Congress”.

    We have had two years of the Republicans opposing everything that the Democratic wanted to regain control of Congress. Now we will have two more years of the Democratic opposing everything the Republicans want so they can regain control of Congress.

    When will either side put Governing above partisan control of the Congress?

    Neither being interested in putting the country and the people in front of the minor effects of being in control of Congress!

    • I deplore the obstructionist approach! It is stupid and cowardly no matter who is using it.

      I still wonder how the Republicans must be bowed to when they are in the majority of ONE chamber of Congress? Egotists! Although I recall the democrats don’t have the chutzpah to even recognize when they have a super majority in the Senate to go with a large majority in the House and the presidency! What wuzzes!

      I also am reminded that as soon as President Obama and the democrats accomplished what they promised during the campaign there was much gnashing of teeth, and accusations of everything bad.

      I still have the same question — what legislative accomplishment have Republican majorities brought Americans that you’re most proud of or you feel benefited Americans the most?

    • itolduso

      “When will either side put Governing above partisan control of the Congress?”

      Not ever.

  2. tosmarttobegop

    The Senate is frustrating, far from majority rule is enable a single Senator to be the King of the United States! His vote or stance negates the rest of the entire body of the Senate.

  3. tosmarttobegop

    I guess my annoyance and frustration got the best of me when even after I put half of what I needed to buy back and still not enough money in the account to cover what was left.

    Before I knew it I had announce that I sure hope the Conservatives hold their will and borrow the money from some foreign country to give the Millionaires a tax break!

    • That is truly frustrating! And very sad.

      When I hear someone ranting and raving about either of the extremes — letting all tax cuts expire or making them all permanent — I see a person who would make an excellent politician in today’s world because they are unable to compromise. I understand how bad our country’s debt is, and I know how much worse it will be if more people end up on welfare and Medicaid. We can save some now by not extending tax cuts for those who have no need. It makes more sense than saving nothing and doesn’t hurt anyone.

  4. itolduso

    Well, I am one that says let them all expire. And it has nothing to do with politics, unlike the message of “tax the rich” WHich is just politics. Everyone responsible for this mess understands that taxing the rich is a drop in the bucket. 700 billion dollars over 10 years. That’s only 70 billion dollars a year, in a 2 trillion dollar budget. The real money is letting the rest of the tax cuts expire….3.1 trillion dolllars over 10 years, which is 300 billion dollars in a 2 trillion dollar budget. The debt is becoming unmanagable. To solve it , you go where the money is. The “tax th rich” politics is nothing but “let someone else pay the tab.” The fact is, 47% of the population pay no income tax now, mThat needs to be addresed

  5. I agree that there needs to be an full examination of the current income tax structure. I suspect we might disagree on how this might be accomplished.

    One thing to note is that many of those not paying income taxes are the beneficiaries of the indexing of brackets, standard deduction amounts, and deduction for personal exemptions (taxpayer, spouse [if applicable] and dependents) that was a part of the Reagan “tax reform”. That indicates there are some whose real income has not increased more than the rate of inflation (as adjusted for income tax purposes), which, I submit, is a major problem in and of itself. Then, there are those (relatively) few in number who have their economic lives structured in a way that they pay no income taxes on what is a substantial income. I wonder whether that 47% that is cited includes corporate taxpayers as well as individual taxpayers, and whether the term “income taxes” includes the Alternative Minimum Tax.

  6. I’m sure we all agree on the need to make adjustments to our current income tax structure, and it might be we would have as many ideas as there are people on how that should be accomplished.

    I’ve never found actual proof that 47% is an accurate figure, much less how many very wealthy fall into the ‘pay no taxes’ description.

    Compromise. A word that seems to have been forgotten.

    70 billion dollars a year does seem small when compared to any larger number, but I still find it to be a considerable sum. When I know for sure that amount can easily be saved without inflicting any damage to anyone, I see no reason to make good the enemy of perfect.

  7. itolduso


    Here’s an article from the AP

    About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That’s according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization

    • Thanks, itolduso. I’ve seen these figures, and different ones, released from think tanks and research organizations… I don’t know which to believe. I do agree completely there is a problem! I see many blame it on certain groups of taxpayers or those someone has put into a box, and I disagree with that premise.

  8. itolduso

    I agree that there needs to be an full examination of the current income tax structure. I suspect we might disagree on how this might be accomplished.

    I suspect you are correct. My overall thought would be to a flat tax, no deductions, for everyone. Or, elimination of the m income tax in all it’s versions, and apply a national sales tax, such as some variation of the Fair Tax. My preference woulld be the Fair Tax.

  9. Is it possible those who don’t fall in the ‘have very little money,’ or ‘have a lot of money’ categories bear the greatest tax burdens?

  10. tosmarttobegop

    It is something that seems to be lost in all the calls for extending the tax cuts.
    There is no such thing as a tax cut in this, it amounts to simply I instead of the dollar coming out of your right pocket it is coming out of your left pocket.

    If a dollar is taken how much is it worth if it comes out of your left pocket instead of your right?

    In reality it is increasing the national debt to be borrowing the money to pay for the tax cuts either way it goes.

  11. itolduso

    Maybe the $200,000 per individual or $250,000 per couple is too low. Maybe that needs to be raised. That would be the first place I would look for a compromise.

    Not for me…. My belief is it needs to be lowered. By considerable. Every body needs to take responsibility for paying for the government. Abject poor, well, you can’t get blood from a turnip. The rest, start coughing it up.