The poll doesn't say anything about welfare.
***Official Political Discussion Thread***
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by rico x hood,
- Start date
The poll doesn't say anything about welfare.
- 10,459
- 8,935
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2011
the tax climate is changing to benefit small business income over w2 wages.
There seems to be an undertone in todays politics to get the next generation used to the idea that jobs are unstable investments of time.
We won't have the same entitlement programs
like pensions, retirement etc.
Majority of jobs are hiring on temp to hire basis. (you'll be a temp forever)
Seems like the whole world iss charged with learning how to be creative
- 9,763
- 10,603
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2005
Alright, there's a few things wrong with this.
1. 250k IS a lot of money, it's around 5 times the average wage in the country.
2. From my understanding people who are married or have kids get a tax deduction, no matter what income. So nobody with a "family" (i.e. wife and kids) would get taxed at that rate anyways.
3. For years because of the Bush tax cuts and tax loopholes (*cough* Romney *cough*) people who make 250K have paid LESS (percentage wise) in taxes than those who make below 250K, but are above the poverty line. This isn't true in every case of course, but that's the pattern.
Ending the Bush tax cuts isn't about asking the upper-class and rich to pay some absurd, foolishly high rate, it's more so about them paying what everybody else has been paying.
No disrespect.
- 8,485
- 1,318
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2010
at 250k not being "too much to live on".. are you ******g serious bro? Median household income in the US is $50k. HOUSEHOLD income. And I hope you know that they don't actually pay 31% of 250k, it's taxed progressively. In reality, they'll probably end up paying maybe $2-3000 extra on the same earnings.
Last edited:
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 63,117
- 189,435
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
That's straight up untrue. A family making over 250,000 would still have 13,000-16,0000 (plus other deductions) a month to support themselves. That's enough to live very comfortably in any major metropolitan area.
Last edited:
- 36,266
- 11,071
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
DT43, some people just do not care to know how progressive tax bases work, or for anything politics related for that matter.... Dollars 1-250,000 would receive a tax cut.. Only money at 250,001 or more will be taxed at 39% as opposed to 35%.
So some people need to just stop complaining about taxes of people making $250K because that's "not that much"
5% of the country puts you at a very privileged position, regardless of where you live.
So some people need to just stop complaining about taxes of people making $250K because that's "not that much"
5% of the country puts you at a very privileged position, regardless of where you live.
Last edited:
This is true. Many people could care less about knowing how taxes actually work and would rather just use talking points from their favorite TV program. It still amazes me that so many people like to talk taxes and have such a little understandings of the topic to where they don't understand things like above and below the line deductions and marginal tax rates. 4 yrs later and people are still saying the same thing.
- 36,266
- 11,071
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
John Steinbeck hit on it perfectly
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
The move by people who make far below $250K to bash tax increases on over $250K is partly because a lot of people have a fanatical view of America. Some people truly believe that they will get to that level of success, and they don't want to create that "extra tax burden" for when they reach that level, Unfortunately, the likelihood is that you won't, especially if you were not there already due to your parents being over that income.
People need to fully realize that they are every bit as socialist as European counterparts, and they live it everyday, and they love what they can get from the hands of socialist policies.. There has been a concerted effort to just drive home again and again that everything socialism is evil, when this country is as socialist as it is capitalist. People need to accept that fact, and not only would it help political discourse, and **** may finally get down, but the country as a whole would be better off for it.
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
The move by people who make far below $250K to bash tax increases on over $250K is partly because a lot of people have a fanatical view of America. Some people truly believe that they will get to that level of success, and they don't want to create that "extra tax burden" for when they reach that level, Unfortunately, the likelihood is that you won't, especially if you were not there already due to your parents being over that income.
People need to fully realize that they are every bit as socialist as European counterparts, and they live it everyday, and they love what they can get from the hands of socialist policies.. There has been a concerted effort to just drive home again and again that everything socialism is evil, when this country is as socialist as it is capitalist. People need to accept that fact, and not only would it help political discourse, and **** may finally get down, but the country as a whole would be better off for it.
Last edited:
- 36,266
- 11,071
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
Just to provide word for a more informed electorate.. If someone says the Election was rigged because Romney didn't receive one vote in 59 districts in Philadelphia.. Point them to two things.
Nike Jordan
Supporter
- 32,517
- 76,857
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2002
- 48,204
- 48,899
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2009
Never understood what was so wrong with the Bush Tax cuts. The man lowered tax rates for every single income group in the country. The Bush tax cuts don't need to end, they need to be reformed. People making 250+ or more should pay an extra 3% but taxes better not increase on anything below 250k.
Rubio also had a point, I know tons of rich folks who elude paying regular taxes by giving money to charities and getting tax write-offs. The thing is, they choose a charity and god knows anyone can start up a charity. It's easy to escape taxes when you're rich. He made a great point, just saying.
Rubio also had a point, I know tons of rich folks who elude paying regular taxes by giving money to charities and getting tax write-offs. The thing is, they choose a charity and god knows anyone can start up a charity. It's easy to escape taxes when you're rich. He made a great point, just saying.
- 4,316
- 10,501
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2007
I'de actually prefer if they just expired without any reform. I'm actually okay with taxes being raised across the board. I think those making over 250k should pay a slightly higher premium, maybe 2 or 3 percent more. i think a little tax increase across the board wouldn't do us much harm. Me personally, it wouldn't really affect my financial outlook.
Last edited:
- 36,266
- 11,071
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
You can't do that right now. I agree, that it should, but right now it's not feasible (for under $250K, and I think it could cause some issues. Once the economy has picked up fully and stabilizes then I would agree that taxes for under $250K should be raised slightly
- 863
- 78
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2001
LOL at once the economy stabilizes. So Bernanke and Co are going to print forever and the bubbles will keep blowing. Keep dreaming.
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 63,117
- 189,435
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
Nike Jordan
Supporter
- 32,517
- 76,857
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2002
- 4,122
- 640
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
throwing money from his helicopter to USPS and FHA
http://www.latimes.com/business/mon...ministration-bailout-20121116,0,1915053.story
FHA projected to exhaust reserves, could need bailout
Hermes Maldonado in the living room of his new 2,000-square-foot home in Moreno Valley in August. He lost a home to foreclosure and declared bankruptcy three years ago, but in July he closed escrow on this new home. The mortgage is backed by the Federal Housing Administration. (Bob Chamberlin / Los Angeles Times)
Your take?
Give the FHA a bailout?
See more »
By Jim Puzzanghera This post has been corrected, as indicated below.
November 16, 2012, 4:46 a.m.
WASHINGTON -- The Federal Housing Administration, which has played a crucial role in stabilizing the housing market, said it ended September with $16.3 billion in projected losses -- a possible prelude to a taxpayer bailout.
The precarious financial situation could force the FHA, which has been self-funded through mortgage insurance premiums since it was created during the Great Depression, to tap the U.S. Treasury to stay afloat.
The agency said a determination on whether it needs a bailout won't come until next year.
The FHA is required to maintain enough cash reserves to cover losses on the mortgages it insures. But in its annual actuarial report to Congress, the agency said a slower-than-anticipated housing market recovery has led its reserves to fall $16.3 billion below anticipated losses.
The FHA's cash reserves aren't supposed to drop below 2% of projected losses. They ended the 2012 fiscal year at -1.44%, down from the seriously low level of 0.24% at the end of 2011.
Quiz: How much do you know about the 'fiscal cliff'?
The FHA and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which oversees it, said the report "does not mean FHA has insufficient cash to pay insurance claims, a current operating deficit or will need to immediately draw funds from the Treasury."
A request for taxpayer money would come in President Obama's 2014 budget, set to be released in February, with a final determination of whether the FHA needs the funds coming next September. The FHA has permanent and indefinite authority to draw money from the Treasury, although it has never had to use that power.
The FHA does not lend money, but guarantees loans made by banks in exchange for insurance premiums. The agency's role has expanded since the crash of the subprime mortgage market, and it now insures about $1.1 trillion in loans, according to Inside Mortgage Finance.
But the expanded role, including backing mortgages with as little as 3.5% down payment and for some people who have undergone recent foreclosures, has taken a toll on its finances. The agency boosted premiums and took other steps in 2009 to shore up its capital reserves.
"While the loans made during this administration remain the strongest in the agency's history, we take the findings of the independent actuary very seriously," said acting FHA Commissioner Carol Galante. "We will continue to take aggressive steps to protect FHA's financial health while ensuring that FHA continues to perform its historic role of providing access to homeownership for underserved communities and supporting the housing market during tough economic times."
[For the record, 5:13 a.m. Nov. 16: A previous version of this post referred to the FHA as the Federal Housing Agency. It is the Federal Housing Administration.]
[For the record, 5:20 p.m. Nov. 16: An earlier version of this post said the FHA's cash reserves aren't supposed to drop below 2% of projected losses. Actually, its net worth must not drop below 2% of the outstanding balances of the loans it guarantees.
Hermes Maldonado in the living room of his new 2,000-square-foot home in Moreno Valley in August. He lost a home to foreclosure and declared bankruptcy three years ago, but in July he closed escrow on this new home. The mortgage is backed by the Federal Housing Administration. (Bob Chamberlin / Los Angeles Times)
Your take?
Give the FHA a bailout?
See more »
By Jim Puzzanghera This post has been corrected, as indicated below.
November 16, 2012, 4:46 a.m.
WASHINGTON -- The Federal Housing Administration, which has played a crucial role in stabilizing the housing market, said it ended September with $16.3 billion in projected losses -- a possible prelude to a taxpayer bailout.
The precarious financial situation could force the FHA, which has been self-funded through mortgage insurance premiums since it was created during the Great Depression, to tap the U.S. Treasury to stay afloat.
The agency said a determination on whether it needs a bailout won't come until next year.
The FHA is required to maintain enough cash reserves to cover losses on the mortgages it insures. But in its annual actuarial report to Congress, the agency said a slower-than-anticipated housing market recovery has led its reserves to fall $16.3 billion below anticipated losses.
The FHA's cash reserves aren't supposed to drop below 2% of projected losses. They ended the 2012 fiscal year at -1.44%, down from the seriously low level of 0.24% at the end of 2011.
Quiz: How much do you know about the 'fiscal cliff'?
The FHA and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which oversees it, said the report "does not mean FHA has insufficient cash to pay insurance claims, a current operating deficit or will need to immediately draw funds from the Treasury."
A request for taxpayer money would come in President Obama's 2014 budget, set to be released in February, with a final determination of whether the FHA needs the funds coming next September. The FHA has permanent and indefinite authority to draw money from the Treasury, although it has never had to use that power.
The FHA does not lend money, but guarantees loans made by banks in exchange for insurance premiums. The agency's role has expanded since the crash of the subprime mortgage market, and it now insures about $1.1 trillion in loans, according to Inside Mortgage Finance.
But the expanded role, including backing mortgages with as little as 3.5% down payment and for some people who have undergone recent foreclosures, has taken a toll on its finances. The agency boosted premiums and took other steps in 2009 to shore up its capital reserves.
"While the loans made during this administration remain the strongest in the agency's history, we take the findings of the independent actuary very seriously," said acting FHA Commissioner Carol Galante. "We will continue to take aggressive steps to protect FHA's financial health while ensuring that FHA continues to perform its historic role of providing access to homeownership for underserved communities and supporting the housing market during tough economic times."
[For the record, 5:13 a.m. Nov. 16: A previous version of this post referred to the FHA as the Federal Housing Agency. It is the Federal Housing Administration.]
[For the record, 5:20 p.m. Nov. 16: An earlier version of this post said the FHA's cash reserves aren't supposed to drop below 2% of projected losses. Actually, its net worth must not drop below 2% of the outstanding balances of the loans it guarantees.
- 1,341
- 271
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2012
The first hint of a disagreement came when Pelosi addressed reporters after the morning meeting had ended. "The speaker," she noted, "spoke about a framework going into next year," whereas she "was focusing on how to send a message of confidence to consumers ... in the short term."
Shortly after her comments, a Boehner aide offered additional details about what the speaker had outlined.
"The speaker said he believes 2013 should be the year we begin to solve our debt problem through tax reform and entitlement reform, and proposed that both parties work together to avert the fiscal cliff together in a manner that ensures 2013 is that year," the aide said in an email to HuffPost. "He proposed that both parties commit to working toward a framework for tax and entitlement reform in 2013 that sets revenue and spending levels."
"Since tax and entitlement reform are too complex to complete this year, the speaker noted, our goal for this year, in the coming weeks, is to settle on long-term revenue targets for tax reform as well as targets for savings from our entitlement programs," the aide added. "Once we settle on those targets, the speaker proposed, we can create simple mechanisms, in statute, that would achieve those revenue and spending goals. They would be in place unless or until more thoughtful policies replace them."
The statement, in short, underscored a play for a short-term extension of both the Bush tax cuts and the sequester, so that they could be replaced (as issues) by broader tax reform and entitlement reform, respectively. And if that didn't work, another trigger could be established to serve as "a simple mechanism" to force Congress to act. Left unsaid is whether Boehner would agree to some short-term legislation in the meantime to achieve that delay. A source in the room during the negotiations said the speaker seemed amenable to doing something before the Dec. 31 deadline.
A follow-up request for comment to the speaker's office wasn't immediately returned.
But a statement from Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) to Bloomberg TV on Friday suggested that Republicans, at least on tax cuts, are now trying to kick the can down the road entirely.
"I think there's only one logical thing to do," said the Ohio Republican, "and that's to continue the current tax code for six months. Or maybe it's a year. I think [President Obama] might consider it, if at this point, when you make that agreement not to create the great uncertainty and the huge tax increases that could push us into recession."
Republicans are correct to argue that Congress won't have enough time between now and the end of the year to hammer out comprehensive tax reform. But there is an added benefit to Republicans in pushing discussions into 2013. The president has immense political leverage, having just won an election in which he pledged not to continue the Bush tax cuts for income over $250,000. Six months from now, the situation may be different. Certainly, the closer one gets to the 2014 midterm elections, the more skittish moderate Democrats are likely to be about letting any rates go higher.
lol. Rupeblicans gonna get in that *** once again. Democrats are known for wimping out against them on issues
Shortly after her comments, a Boehner aide offered additional details about what the speaker had outlined.
"The speaker said he believes 2013 should be the year we begin to solve our debt problem through tax reform and entitlement reform, and proposed that both parties work together to avert the fiscal cliff together in a manner that ensures 2013 is that year," the aide said in an email to HuffPost. "He proposed that both parties commit to working toward a framework for tax and entitlement reform in 2013 that sets revenue and spending levels."
"Since tax and entitlement reform are too complex to complete this year, the speaker noted, our goal for this year, in the coming weeks, is to settle on long-term revenue targets for tax reform as well as targets for savings from our entitlement programs," the aide added. "Once we settle on those targets, the speaker proposed, we can create simple mechanisms, in statute, that would achieve those revenue and spending goals. They would be in place unless or until more thoughtful policies replace them."
The statement, in short, underscored a play for a short-term extension of both the Bush tax cuts and the sequester, so that they could be replaced (as issues) by broader tax reform and entitlement reform, respectively. And if that didn't work, another trigger could be established to serve as "a simple mechanism" to force Congress to act. Left unsaid is whether Boehner would agree to some short-term legislation in the meantime to achieve that delay. A source in the room during the negotiations said the speaker seemed amenable to doing something before the Dec. 31 deadline.
A follow-up request for comment to the speaker's office wasn't immediately returned.
But a statement from Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) to Bloomberg TV on Friday suggested that Republicans, at least on tax cuts, are now trying to kick the can down the road entirely.
"I think there's only one logical thing to do," said the Ohio Republican, "and that's to continue the current tax code for six months. Or maybe it's a year. I think [President Obama] might consider it, if at this point, when you make that agreement not to create the great uncertainty and the huge tax increases that could push us into recession."
Republicans are correct to argue that Congress won't have enough time between now and the end of the year to hammer out comprehensive tax reform. But there is an added benefit to Republicans in pushing discussions into 2013. The president has immense political leverage, having just won an election in which he pledged not to continue the Bush tax cuts for income over $250,000. Six months from now, the situation may be different. Certainly, the closer one gets to the 2014 midterm elections, the more skittish moderate Democrats are likely to be about letting any rates go higher.
lol. Rupeblicans gonna get in that *** once again. Democrats are known for wimping out against them on issues
- 4,316
- 10,501
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2007
This pisses me off to no end. Boehner and the rest of the house should've been planning for months. They've had plenty of time to come up with some sort of tax reform. With about a month until the bush tax cuts expire now is when they want to negotiate a plan with the president. The republicans in the house were banking that romney would win the election and did absolutely nothing these past couple months. They knew there was a deadline, they knew the tax cuts were going to expire, why was nothing done!? Now they're asking for an extension? I'm sorry but a deadline is a deadline. Workers meet them, students meet them, business owners meet them, and politicians should also meet them.
Nike Jordan
Supporter
- 32,517
- 76,857
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2002
tengoeljugode
Banned
- 292
- 48
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2012
My man, what in the hell are you talking about? NOBODY was doing ANYTHING these last 6 months or so because of the election. That has nothing to do with banking on Romney winning and everything to do with getting people elected. This took place on both sides of the aisle in every area of the country.
- 4,316
- 10,501
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2007
Yaa, but democrats aren't the ones wanting an extension..
And an election is no excuse. Do you and i stop working during an election? I think not. Things still need to get done. And they had plenty of time to come up with a solid plan.
Last edited:
- 4,316
- 10,501
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2007
Here's the first half of that article (i think)
WASHINGTON -- Following an hour-long meeting at the White House on Friday morning, congressional leaders in both the House and Senate took to the microphones for a show of unity around collaborative efforts to address the so-called fiscal cliff.
The meeting had been constructive, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) all agreed. The leaders suggested a framework had been put in place to reach a deal, which would involve a mixture of raising tax revenues and pursuing entitlement reforms. Away from the microphones, White House officials were putting forward a similarly optimistic face. The "grand bargain" that President Barack Obama and Boehner nearly pulled off in the summer of 2011 was back on the table, they noted, but with the terms of the negotiation favoring the president even more.
But for all their calm rhetoric and cool demeanors, the two parties may still face a major point of disagreement. With just weeks to go before the Bush tax cuts expire and the sequester (totaling $1 trillion in spending cuts) goes into effect, Republicans are now pushing for an extension of the deadline until some time in 2013. Democrats, by contrast, are demanding that some agreement be reached before the end of the year.
The first hint of a disagreement came when Pelosi addressed reporters after the morning meeting had ended. "The speaker," she noted, "spoke about a framework going into next year," whereas she "was focusing on how to send a message of confidence to consumers ... in the short term."
WASHINGTON -- Following an hour-long meeting at the White House on Friday morning, congressional leaders in both the House and Senate took to the microphones for a show of unity around collaborative efforts to address the so-called fiscal cliff.
The meeting had been constructive, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) all agreed. The leaders suggested a framework had been put in place to reach a deal, which would involve a mixture of raising tax revenues and pursuing entitlement reforms. Away from the microphones, White House officials were putting forward a similarly optimistic face. The "grand bargain" that President Barack Obama and Boehner nearly pulled off in the summer of 2011 was back on the table, they noted, but with the terms of the negotiation favoring the president even more.
But for all their calm rhetoric and cool demeanors, the two parties may still face a major point of disagreement. With just weeks to go before the Bush tax cuts expire and the sequester (totaling $1 trillion in spending cuts) goes into effect, Republicans are now pushing for an extension of the deadline until some time in 2013. Democrats, by contrast, are demanding that some agreement be reached before the end of the year.
The first hint of a disagreement came when Pelosi addressed reporters after the morning meeting had ended. "The speaker," she noted, "spoke about a framework going into next year," whereas she "was focusing on how to send a message of confidence to consumers ... in the short term."
- 1,341
- 271
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2012
Yes that's the first half I just didn't want to hear TLDR hahaha
- 36,266
- 11,071
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
