Quick reminder: today, all across America, thousands of people whose taxes will go down are marching and protesting the fact that my taxes will go up.
By 3 percentage points.
Memo to protesters: I'm okay with that, because I am not a selfish dick. I think I can survive the same crushing tax rates we had during the great economic apocalypse of the Clinton Years.
Go. Home.
(It's only going to get weirder.)
101 comments:
I know it's a sacrifice, but I would be willing to accept a substantial increase in my pay, even though it would mean that some of the money I do not actually have would theoretically be taxed at a slightly higher percentage than one at which the comfortable income I actually have is. I'd do this because I love my country. You're welcome.
It's good you're not being a selfish dick for the teabagging. However, your (federal income) taxes are going up about 8.5% or 3 percentage-points.
Pedantically yours,
JDC
Only on the top marginal rate. All my income below that doesn't change. And despite what you may have heard about TV writers, a fairly big chunk of my income is below that.
However, I changed it, because the correct phrase is actually funnier. thanks for the catch.
My taxes are set to go down, yet I would gladly accept a tax hike if it meant better health care, schools, environmental protection, roads...and the list goes on. I generally see the point of protests, but this one leaves me scratching my head.
Oh, man, I would gladly accept outlandish government taxes if it meant that I'd have an actual income.
It's not about the taxes now.
It's about the spending NOW, which can only be supported by higher taxes LATER.
If it meant getting Universal Healthcare, I'd gladly pay an extra 3% in taxes, and I make waaaaay less than 250K.
It's not about the taxes now.
It's about the spending NOW, which can only be supported by higher taxes LATER.Which is even more craptastic, as the same knobs wringing their hands over out of control spending NOW were giddy little school girls, pissing their panties in glee at the out of control spending of the last 8 years.
But then, it was being done by Republicans to kill brown people in far off lands. But somehow this new spending is really evil, because it's being done by a Democrat to fix shit that got broken by Republicans here in the US, where it might help brown people.
"It's not about the taxes now.
It's about the spending NOW, which can only be supported by higher taxes LATER."
Actually, they'll be supported by lower taxes that bring in more revenue, thanks to the increased government spending NOW going into building up infrastructure and employment rates.
But heaven forfend that the government spend any money at all, ever.
"But heaven forfend that the government spend any money at all, ever."
Where by "ever" they mean "under a Democratic administration." kkisser got it right.
We really need to just go to the Fair Tax or a simular national sales tax and be done with it. It'd be a hell of a lot simpler. The current system punishes people for being successful. I see guys turning down overtime because they would lose money.
Doesn't matter which party is doing the spending. It needs to be cut back and the Government needs to stay out of things that are not their affair.
Marty: there are good (but highly debatable) economic arguments for a consumption tax rather than an income tax, but "simpler" is not really one of them. "Just implement a VAT" sounds simple until you actually look at how VATs (and similar plans) get done in the real world: there's quite a bit of government infrastructure and paperwork built up around it, and there's no guarantee that it will be any less onerous bureaucracy-wise than an income/capital-gains/property taxation scheme.
Thought you might enjoy this:
TV bag protest off to a great start in DC.
" The current system punishes people for being successful. I see guys turning down overtime because they would lose money."
The current system only punishes people for being successful if they don't have any interest in figuring out how the system works. IOW, the guy who turns down overtime because he'd lose money has a fool for a tax accountant.
That being said, the current system is ridiculously over-complex and chock full of half a century of legislative debris.
What Mooney said bears repeating, loudly:
"I see guys turning down overtime because they would lose money."If you actually see that and don't immediately tell them that that's not how it works, then you're not much of a friend. Because that's not how it works and has never been how it works.
This is not a subject for debate, this is a matter of fact and written law. If you don't believe a bunch of liberal hippies on a random blog, fine: but ask your local staunch conservative republican CPA, and he will tell you the exact same thing. It doesn't work like that: take the fucking overtime.
I am always a fan of the fact that the "we must always cut taxes no matter what unto the ends of the earth" crowd blithely ignores the fact that every other major industrialized country on earth TAXES THE LIVING SHIT out of their citizens and for the most part they seem to be doing alright for themselves.
@Doctor Memory: yes, totally correct. But a lot of people don't know/believe that.
C'mon, Rogers! Fess up about the containers full of Ameros that the Illuminati pay you for corrupting our youth with stories that show criminals in a positive light.
(Note to tea baggers: Above is a joke.)
Verification Vocabulary: 'obtisi' Kenyan for "tea bag."
Marty: Don't poorer people spend more of their paycheck on buying things than wealthier people do? That seems like you'd end up with a system in which people who don't make a lot of money are paying a larger percentage of taxes than people that make a lot of money--which, I guess, would be punishing people for being poor.
This is assuming that you believe taxes are essentially punitive in the first place, which seems...kind of weird to me.
Doesn't matter which party is doing the spending. It needs to be cut back and the Government needs to stay out of things that are not their affair.There are probably things that need to be cut back, but the way the legislature works regional interests do have to be served to maintain any semblance of order for an incumbent.
To your first point, my mother's been a certified public accountant since I was 12 and that's not how tax brackets work. If you're between x and y then you're the same bracket, so if you go from 20 grand to 34 you pay the same rate which gives you and the government more money. Now if you went from 34 grand to 54 grand, you would be in a different bracket but the tax rate hike wouldn't be large enough to justify not making an extra 20 grand.
Secondly, the majority of what we spend on the budget are things we need like a military,law enforcement and emergency personnel, federal investigation branches, Intelligence Agencies, and regulatory bodies(I admit the FDA needs a major shakeup though). The fault of most of this crisis comes not from over-regulation, but a laissez-faire attitude towards the concept of regulation in general. You can't regulate greed but you can regulate the game.
We could also save money by doing some of the pinko commie fag things I want though, like legalizing certain categories of drugs(marijuana and shrooms anyone?),stopping COINTEL-esque infiltrations of peace groups and other relatively ineffectual hippies, so on.
Another way to save a decent chunk of change( not to mention the lives of servicemen and women) is subsidizing Afghanistan's opium market for our pharmaceutical needs like we do with Turkey. We'd end up destroying the Taliban and Al Qaeda's main source of income and putting the Golden Crescent under our control.
The other budget requests could also reflect basic human decency like not punishing the poor with death because insurance co.s won't pay for treatments(being rich is part hard work, but it's also a lot of luck too).
-SH.
"The current system punishes people for being successful."When the top marginal rate goes above 100%, you'll be correct. In the meantime, we're talking about raising the level to somewhere below where it was under Reagan, and way the hell below where it was under Eisenhower (you know, when our economy was so robust that we enjoyed a standard of living we are currently trying to get back to).
Taxes buy you civilization, and if you don't recognize how lucky you are to live in a place where clean cities, affordable utilities, and a steady untainted food supply are the norm, you just might want to spend a couple months in the woods and decide whether a little success-punishing is really so bad.
braak: you've hit one one of the big reasons why consumption taxes aren't necessarily simpler than income taxes. In most countries with consumption taxes, the anti-progressive nature of them is dealt with by refunding the taxes to poorer people. Depending on the scheme, this can require receipt-saving, or ID cards, or fancy statistical guesswork and refunds: the paperwork level can be just as bad as the 1040 or worse.
On the other hand, some days I'm in favor of consumption taxes for no other reason than that nobody can make the stupid "I can't work more -- I'll earn less!" claim with them. :)
In these odd economic times, I think the government should consider no taxation of overtime pay. Sure, tax revenue would shrink, but it might increase productivity (more people clamoring for overtime, no matter what the job), increase consumer spending (people have more money), compel businesses to have more salaried employees. Other problematic idea of mine: a low, blanket income tax for K-12 teachers in lieu of pay raises.
If anyoen out there thinks that making more money will result in less total after tax income I have a simple remmedy for you.
Send me the excess income you made that pushed you into a higher bracket. I'll send you a reciept for tax consulting, now you have a deduction that will lower your oringinal taxes as well, a total win.
Or simply google marginal tax rates and figure out how taxes actually work. Short answer it is always better to make more money.
To be perfectly clear, I never said get rid of taxation in it's entirety. It is necessary for running and maintaining the country. I still think a consumption tax is the way to go.
I would much rather get my paycheck and decide what to do with my money as opposed to a chunk of it going to Government and waiting to see at the end of the year whether or not they're going to want more or possibly give some back. If I feel I need to save my money and consume less then not getting my income taxed would allow me to reach my savings goals faster.
I'm a charitable person. I like to give to worthy causes with monetary gifts and my times and talents. If I'm going to support a wetland conservation effort over fighting pediatric cancer then it should be my decision. I don't like my money being taken and used on projects when I feel it's better used elsewhere. Now, there's no way to get away from this entirely and there never will be. Still, I'd like more control over what I earn.
Come on, Rogers. We're not talking about tiny increases in top marginal tax brackets. We're talking about attempting to solve an economic crisis created by cheap money and massive overborrowing with CHEAPER MONEY and EVEN MORE MASSIVE OVERBORROWING. It doesn't make any sense. Whether it will help the economy in the short run is debatable. What is unquestionable is that it will significantly increase our national debt at a time when the baby boomers are starting to leave the workforce for good. What this means is that shrinking numbers of working-age Americans will be responsible for sharply-increasing debts. At that point, the only solutions are either keep borrowing until the well runs dry (which will come sooner than you think), severely cut federal spending (not bloody likely), or sharply increase taxes. This will not end well for either the American economy or the average taxpayer. Better then to stand up now and to try to do something about it.
Cool -- for more on the teabaggery, check out http://hellodollyllama.blogspot.com/
Come visit!
"We're talking about attempting to solve an economic crisis created by cheap money and massive overborrowing with CHEAPER MONEY and EVEN MORE MASSIVE OVERBORROWING."Not all overspending is equal -- there's a difference between running up $5000 on your credit card to fix your roof and spending $5000 on vodka, donuts, and hookers. It is unfortunate that solving the current problems is expensive and is going to take a long time to pay back down, but that's what we get for letting ourselves reach this point.
Murph: "In these odd economic times, I think the government should consider no taxation of overtime pay. Sure, tax revenue would shrink, but it might increase productivity (more people clamoring for overtime, no matter what the job), increase consumer spending (people have more money), compel businesses to have more salaried employees."
The problem with that is the more people working overtime, the fewer actual positions are needed, which means less jobs available. The people who actually are fully employed are generally not the ones who are in trouble. They have a stable income. It's the unemployed and underemployed that are having the most difficulties. If you've got ten people and they all work overtime, that means that there is probably room for at least one more position. In other words, the more people who work overtime, the fewer jobs there are. Generally speaking.
"It is unfortunate that solving the current problems is expensive and is going to take a long time to pay back down, but that's what we get for letting ourselves reach this point." What's really unfortunate is that so many people have come to believe that government over-spending on "shovel-ready" pork projects or bogus bailouts will have any lasting impact on an economy damaged by rampant asset inflation. Asset bubbles, like the one we just went through, are a part of any free-market economy. We've been through a good number of them over the last hundred years, and have always come through okay. The govt has a very limited ability to help (by, for example, keeping interest rates low, and making sure tariffs don't get raised). By ballooning our national debt spending money we don't have and will have difficulty paying off, the only thing we're guaranteed to do is place a weight (future increasing debt payments) around the neck of our national economy that promises to constrain any eventual recovery. The taxes that we'll ultimately see will only make things worse.
Some of us are very worried about the long-term damage being done to the American economy, and are trying to do something about it. If you think the Tea Party types are just worrying too much, or you actually welcome European-style tax and unemployment rates, then fine. But if you mock what's happening without even understanding what we're talking about (see Rogers' post and Maddow's Butthead-esque chuckling at the word "teabag"), then you're only embarrassing yourself.
At what point will you decide I understand what's going on? When I agree that the solution is to cut taxes? Sounds like voodoo to me.
Count me among those whose taxes are going up, and who is cool with that.
Nobody on the Left or the Right has a monopoly on being concerned about the direction of the country. We have what's called a disagreement on what to do about it.
I do not believe for one millisecond that the organizers of the tax protest did not understand the double entendre of "teabagging". Especially when they prominently featured such phrases as "teabag Obama" and "teabag Congress".
Of course they meant it as code for "sexually humiliate". Duh. Lots of the rubes out there are presumed to not know this, and the media types think it's funny, so this way, they get some coverage for this otherwise astroturfed non-event.
I'm amused how many of the teabaggers posting in these comments are doing so anonymously.
Of course, I wouldn't admit in public I was into teabagging (quick hint-- I'm not).
Oh, and if you notice any odd links from a (nominally) Christian website, that would be my fault. Sorry.
Wait, no, not sorry.
Oh, and also? Video of the car go boom: here.
My coworker's laughing because I've been muttering imprecations as I scrolled about the Intertubes looking for confirmation this was probably you guys. And there the confirmation was on your Twitter. This is what I get for not reading your Twitter? Thanks a lot!
you actually welcome European-style tax and unemployment rates, then fine.Does it come with the European-style social safety net? Cause if so, I'm all over that.
"I'm a charitable person. I like to give to worthy causes with monetary gifts and my times and talents. If I'm going to support a wetland conservation effort over fighting pediatric cancer then it should be my decision. I don't like my money being taken and used on projects when I feel it's better used elsewhere. Now, there's no way to get away from this entirely and there never will be. Still, I'd like more control over what I earn."
Uhm, if you're that charitable a person, then logically, you're taking all the charitable-donation deductions that you possibly can, right?
If so, then how can there possibly be any doubt as to whether or not you're going to get money back at the end of the tax year?
Every dollar you give to a charitable purpose is one dollar you don't have to give to the government, for whatever purpose.
Every dollar you give to a charitable purpose is one dollar you don't have to give to the government, for whatever purpose. That's not at all how tax deductions work. It's more complicated than that, but if you get a 1/3 of your charity money back from the govt, you're lucky.
I just tweeted this a little bit ago.
"Actual T/bag protest sign: "The American Taxpayers are the Jews for Obama's ovens". CLASSY!!! I guess Goodwin's law has been repealed."
Ladies and Gentlemen, the Crazification Factor is now in effect.
What's really unfortunate is that so many people have come to believe that government over-spending on "shovel-ready" pork projects or bogus bailouts will have any lasting impact on an economy damaged by rampant asset inflation. What's REALLY unfortunate is that so many people have ignored the deflationary pressure that comes in the wake of bubbles and that they're any less damaging than the inflationary pressures.
Not focussing on the entire picture or all the factors here.
That's not at all how tax deductions work. It's more complicated than that, but if you get a 1/3 of your charity money back from the govt, you're lucky. That's correct.
You DO have more control over where your money goes when you donate as opposed to letting the government take it in taxes. And you can be more efficient for the charity (i.e., a gift of stock means that a capital gains tax won't be levied, and that money goes straight to the charity).
"Every dollar you give to a charitable purpose is one dollar you don't have to give to the government, for whatever purpose."
The sad truth is, nobody who makes that argument ("durn gubmint taxed me so I can't give it to charity") actually planned to give their tax savings to charity anyway. The only people who might actually operate that way are folks who prioritize charity above their own recreational / discretionary spending; somehow I don't see Mother Teresa as a fan of Sean Hannity.
"*Every dollar you give to a charitable purpose is one dollar you don't have to give to the government, for whatever purpose.*
That's not at all how tax deductions work. It's more complicated than that, but if you get a 1/3 of your charity money back from the govt, you're lucky."
My mistake, I should have said that every dollar you give to a qualified charitable purpose is one dollar less that counts towards what you have to give to the government.
It's deducted from your adjusted gross income. And yes, while it is more complicated than that (which is true of every aspect of any discussion on tax codes that doesn't take place between groups of CPAs), it's also never necessarily a question of taxes vs. charity.
If you go to the doctor and he recommends a treatment, you might go for a second opinion depending on the seriousness of the issue, but most people will do what the man (men/womyn) says. He went to school for it, after all.
What proportion of economists think minimum wages, protective tariffs (um ... auto-bailout?), corporate taxes and so forth are a good thing?
But on economic issues, instead of listening to the guy in the tie who went to school we look up the most charismatic-crystal-ball-reading-shyster we can find, who of course tells us it'll all be ok if we just send him more money.
Politicians are crooks. Why are you all in such a rush to send them more money? Do you think it will actually benefit the people you intend?
What proportion of economists think minimum wages, protective tariffs (um ... auto-bailout?), corporate taxes and so forth are a good thing?The same economists in Europe we're competing with? Eurobus is a subsidized corporation in France, just like Boeing is in the US.
If you asked a certain economist I'm sure he/she'd disagree with overtime pay, the 8 hour day, the 40 hour work week, pensions, unions, etc. All of these things provide job security/equity for work/ability to eat/prevention of mental breakdowns, and although many conservative economists talk about the minimum wage as if they're talking about satan it also helps us pay rent reliably so we can then buy things and save in order to support service/manufacturing industries and the financial sector. Think of the economy as an ecosystem, and think of cutting the minimum wage as burning seventy percent of all foliage and then you'd realize what'd happen. The economy rabbits, deer, and wolves all die. Without the poor or working class the rich would have nothing.
I have no interest in knowing who you are, but could you at least use an ID(the site lets you pick a name carte-blanc) so I know which self-defeating conservative I'm talking to.
What proportion of economists think minimum wages, protective tariffs (um ... auto-bailout?), corporate taxes and so forth are a good thing?According to "The Economist" and the WSJ, roughly half of them.
But I read somewhere that it's often a good idea to only take the advice of a doctor that you already agree with, too, so there's that.
I would much rather get my paycheck and decide what to do with my money as opposed to a chunk of it going to Government and waiting to see at the end of the year whether or not they're going to want more or possibly give some back. If I feel I need to save my money and consume less then not getting my income taxed would allow me to reach my savings goals faster.This always sounds like a good idea till you actually try putting it in practice. Quite simply, it's the classic commons problem. Nobody really wants to pay for things everyone needs. Worse, nobody wants to pay for things that are necessary to support the things they need but which they don't use themselves.
One case in point: schools. "My kids aren't in school any more" or "I don't have kids", both followed by "so why should I pay taxes for schools?" Nevermind that the choice is educate them and maybe get some doctors and electricians and such vs letting them catch as catch can and wind up with, well, ignorant, uneducated fools who have little opportunity beyond thievery.
Kirk
To Sean. No longer anon.
My personal (hence obviously anecdotal) experience with minimum wages was working at the YMCA as a lifeguard in high school. Many people got payed minimum wage at the Y. None of them payed rent with it.
Some were in school as well, and their parents supported them. Others had spouses who provided their primary income.
There are many reasons that people work outside of bare survival. A lot of empty nesters worked desk there for something to do, to do service for the community, see their friends, et cetera.
With the federal minimum wage that subset of people are not receiving meaningful benefit (they don't really need the money anyway) but the YMCA sure does have to charge more for membership fees ... which means fewer people are able to use the YMCA (which means more drownings, a less healthy population, and potentially less community involvement).
If someone is earning (and I really mean earning) minimum wage, in the vast majority of the country they can't support themselves anyway. If you raise it until it's a 'living wage' then that entire subset of jobs described above disappears. There go just about all the people that walk dogs, lifeguard, work at fast food restaurants, et cetera.
And about being a conservative, the only reason alcohol is legal and cannabis isn't is in a beautiful piece of literature a man named Jesus turned water into wine. So we have jackbooted thugs breaking into people's houses to stop people from consuming one less harmful chemical instead of the one that is sanctioned by the Judeo-Christian deity.
If you want to be really progressive why tax wages at all? With Steve Jobs' salary being $1 it's not like you're giving the people that 'work' for a living a break. Real property would be a beautiful target. Everyone would get to see immediately on their tax bill the actual burden of government instead of it being hidden all over place. It would reduce sprawl with less incentive for your very own McMansion an hour and a half from where you work. Then there is that class of people that own vast tracts of land that pay little to nothing in tax(depending on jurisdiction), but get to keep what their grandfather deeded them indefinitely.
Sorry. Done ranting.
Heph...
The people getting minimum wage at the YMCA, that really don't need the money?
They could just be volunteers, y'know. No pay necessary, and perfectly legal besides.
Heck, I manage to be a member of the board of directors of two separate groups without getting paid for it. 'cause I don't need the money.
So I don't take the money.
Seeing as how the YMCA is a very heavily Volunteer-based organization to begin with, this doesn't seem like heavy lifting, conceptually.
hey Liberals! imagine if it was G.W. Bush raising your taxes this year! would you be so gosh-darn happy about it?
hey "Conservatives"! imagine if it was G.W. Bush raising only the richest people's taxes, because we have a war to fight! would you really care that much?
the biggest problem i see here is that most people have picked a team. the Dems are happy with a tax hike, 'cause it's coming from their man. they would NOT be happy with it coming from G.W. or John McCain.
[case in point: if Obama *didn't* raise your taxes as a rich person, would you be angry? would you be rushing down to DC asking for a tax hike? no! you simply trust the man implicitly. he plays for *your team*.]
the Reps are unhappy with it because it's coming from the other team's leader. they really wouldn't be so vehement if it was a G.W. or McCain hike.
[same deal. if Obama wasn't raising taxes, they'd find something else to raise a stink about.]
there are just a very few of us that candidly and honestly believe the government shouldn't take our earnings at gunpoint to spend on their own political gain (regardless of what team they play for).
of course, most of us didn't participate in the teabagging ceremony.
the crazies come out for that stuff, and most of us are actually quite level-headed and pleasant to talk to.
like this guy says:
http://www.businesspundit.com/tax-day-tea-parties-branded-populist-anger/
hey Liberals! imagine if it was G.W. Bush raising your taxes this year! would you be so gosh-darn happy about it?I'd be okay with it, yeah.
My thanks to Kirk for pointing out the problem of the commons to Marty N.
Not only does the government NOT get the money you give you charity, but if you're doing it right, your charitable giving earns dollar-for-dollar break on your taxes.
(And by doing it right, I mean, doing it to the point where your itemized deductions total more than the standard deduction. If you're a charitable person, it shouldn't be that hard to rack up more than $10,700 in donations, right?)
Heph, the problem with your anecdotal theory of the harm of minimum wage is that it fails history.
In 1938 when it was first proposed, the argument that it would put people out of work was used. No such thing happened.
In 1950 when the first major increase was proposed the same "businesses, having to pay more per person, will fire people so as to cover expenses" argument was used. Again, it didn't happen.
The big boosts in the 1960's, particularly 1968, were the first I've found accompanied by your specific argument - that it would cause jobs for the entry workers and school age part-timers to disappear - was first used. Once more, it didn't happen.
Repeat again in the 1970s, and the few times minimum wage was increased thereafter.
Quite simply, the theory sounds plausible, but when it fails to happen every single time I consider it disproven.
Kirk
A little late, but I gotta say... here... here...
I mean, I hope to be in a position where my taxes would go up. But, for now, I'll take my tax decrease and be glad to pay the taxes I do owe. Because, I enjoy having police officers if I need them. Or, utilizing my local libraries. Or, seeing my nieces and nephews off to school.
As Parker would say, "you're adorable" but you missed the point of why many of us are protesting.
I don't give a damn how much you pay in taxes and if you're so inclined on believing the fairy tale that the government spends money more wisely than you then by all means send more money to the government.
Do you know how much a trillion dollars is? Maybe not--I believe "Homecoming Job" only mentioned billions so it might go over your head.
A trillion= 1,000,000,000,000.
If your started counting the day you were born and didn't stop until you died, you couldn't count up to a trillion and the stimulus bill that Congress passed and the President signed puts us over a trillion dollars in debt. Debt is a form of slavery and every American born today will live and die in debt.
You might consider this radical idea-->freedom of speech (and thus the right to protest)isn't just for liberals.
@Christine
Actually, most of that debt was already there because Sparky started his unnecessary war.
Obama is just trying to get us out of the mess he inherited, while Bush inherited a balanced budget and managed to ruin the country in every way imaginable during his 8 years in office.
And yeah, we know what a trillion is and it doesn't really matter how long it takes to count it. Like most of the wingers, you are focusing on the least relevant thing.
Government spending wisely? No, Bush sure didn't. But that doesn't mean Obama won't do better. And opposed to whom, exactly? Wall Street?
The government provides services to the whole country that take a lot of money. Services we cannot afford to supply individually. So we will always pay taxes and the government will always distribute those dollars as they see fit. All we can do is voice our wishes in the form of elections. Obama won. He got a mandate. And even though I don't agree with everything he's doing, he is such a major improvement over his predecessor that an overwhelming majority of the country is cutting him some slack.
Teabag protests = rightwing nutjobs.
"It's my money!!!!"
Is it also your country? Then pay up.
Or move out.
@Rebecca
I suspect responding to you is a waste of my time given how close minded you are but I decided to respond to a few things you said:
#1) I am neutral on the war in Iraq.
I'm sure you know this but a) The president cannot declare war-only Congress can. b) Congress could have stopped the funding at any time including before/during/after the troops were sent to Iraq and chose not to.
#2) CONGRESS controls the purse strings not the PRESIDENT. Did Bush ask Congress to spend money wisely? No, but as it is Congress that controls the purse strings so its their job to say "NO, Money doesn't grow on trees-we should cut back on spending."
#3) Are you really so dense that you think that I believe that taxation is completely unnecessary? Never mind, reading your diatribe to me I'm sure that's what you believe. For the record, I know some taxation is necessary.
The stimulus bill is filled with items such as Eight billion dollars for high-speed rail lines, including a proposed line between Las Vegas and Los Angeles and that is just one example of pork-barrel spending in the bill. Gee, the government is doing a bang up job deciding how to spend the money.
Wall Street, President Bush, and Congress all share blame for the economic quagmire we find ourselves in but the solution wasn't to pass a bill that no one, including Congress had time to read before it was passed.
It looks like Americans right now are willing to give President Obama a lot of slack but at some point the fact that polls show 58.8 percent of the people believe the country is on the wrong track is and Congress's approval rating is negative 24.1 is going to prove difficult for him to deal with at some point.
@Christine
1)I don't see how anyone with a modicum of intelligence could possibly be neutral on the war in Iraq given its cost to this country. All of that wasted money would have been a big help when the economy began collapsing. And, in fact, it contributed a great deal to the collapse.
Also, since Congress only authorized the war because the President lied to them about the evidence the war was based on, it is still his responsibility. Since he also later threatened not to bring the troops home even if Congress withdrew funding, there wasn't much they could do. He basically blackmailed them.
2) Right, Congress has to take some responsibility. The Republican majority at the time helped the Bush administration gut all the safeguards that were in place to prevent the crisis we are in now, many of them were created after the Depression. The Republican minority is now staying together to try and prevent any measures which don't have anything to do with tax cuts. The party of NO is determined to do all in their power to make sure that the President fails. Because they have alienated all of the moderate Republicans of the past, who have become independants, and are now left with the bitter rump of the party who are mostly the right wing nut jobs came up with those stupid tea party protests.
3) High speed rail is just one of many new innovations that this country needs to cut down on energy use. It's being done all over the world to great success and it is long over due here. Do you have any idea how many flights travel between Los Angeles and Las Vegas on any given day?
You can't just write these things off like that idiot Bobby Jindal did with "something called volcano monitoring". A lot of that stuff has merit.
I completely agree that Bush, the Republican majority Congress and Wall Street share the blame for the economic quagmire, but the bill which passed so quickly was TARP, while Bush was still President. There was time for every one to read the stimulus package.
And while a majority of people still believe the country is currently on the wrong track, that number is much smaller than it was before Obama became President and it is improving in every weekly poll.
If you believe in polls, then you should check out how little the country thinks of Republicans these days. They are ranked below Obama and the Congressional Democrats. And stupid demonstrations like tea bag parties aren't helping their cause.
And, btw, when an entire party vows to just vote no on everything coming their way, it's kind of laughable to call anyone other than them close minded. Plus, I don't think anyone has ever denied that the tea party idiots have the right to express their opinion. We just said that they were right wing nut jobs and their opinions were stupid.
"The stimulus bill is filled with items such as Eight billion dollars for high-speed rail lines, including a proposed line between Las Vegas and Los Angeles"No it doesn't. The stimulus bill does not identify any individual projects that the eight billion is to be set aside for; there is no rational, honest way to go from "8 billion dollars" to "8 billion dollars specifically for a rail from Los Angeles to Las Vegas".
The people who pulled this faux-factoid out of their asses were deliberately trying to misinform you; the only question is whether you are happy to oblige them. It's your right to cleave to ignorance if that is your wish, but expect to be called on it.
花蓮民宿|團體制服|指甲彩繪|搬家|租車|漆彈|徵信|翻譯|室內設計|投影機|隔熱紙
Obatambeien herbal de nature
Cara mengobati wasir dan ambeien
obat tradisional wasir dan aman
cara alami mengobati wasir ambeien
obat herbal wasir atau ambien
cara mengatasi wasir ambeien saat hamil
cara tradisional mengobati wasir/ambeien
obat tradisional wasir atau ambeien
obat kutil kelamin ampuh tanpa operasi
obat kutil kelamin mujarab
obat kutil kelamin medis
obat kutil kelamin paling murah
obat menghilangkan kutil kelamin
obat menyembuhkan kutil kelamin
obat tradisional menyembuhkan kutil kelamin
obat minum untuk kutil kelamin
Obat kencing nanah atau sipilis
obat tradisional buat kencing nanah
obat buat penyakit kencing nanah
obat antibiotik buat kencing nanah
obat herbal buat kencing nanah
obat apotik buat kencing nanah
obat kencing nanah gonore
obat gonorrhea kencing nanah
cara mengobati kutil kelamin pada wanita tanpa harus menggunakan operasi cukup dengan menggunakan obat khusus kutil kelamin paling manjur dari klinik de nature manjurserta sangat aman untuk ibu hamil
Apabila anda sedang mencari pengobatan kutil kelamin untuk pria maupun wanita segera kunjungi kami http://obatkutilkelaminwanita.blogdetik.com cara mengobati kutil kelamin pada wanita tanpa harus menggunakan operasi cukup dengan menggunakan obat khusus kutil kelamin paling manjur dari klinik de nature manjurserta sangat aman untuk ibu hamil
Penyakit kencing nanah bisa disebabkan oleh beberapa faktor seperti seks bebas, penularan, virus hpv, lingkungan, gaya hidup dan lainnya, Maka dari itu kita harus waspada dengan penyakit kencing nanah ini, karena penyakit kencing nanah sangatlah berbahaya, Namun untuk anda yang menderita penyakit kencing nanah, maka anda tidak perlu khawatir,
Berhati-hatilah anda yang suka berganti-ganti pasangan seks, karena sangat besar sekali kemungkinannya untuk terkena penyakit kencing nanah atau gonore maupun yang lainnya.
Berapa Harga untuk Obat Wasir Ambeien alami daun ungu Ambeclear – Ambeien adalah gangguan atau penyakit yang terjadi pada saluran pencernaan manusia
Bukan hanya pengobatan medis saja tapi ada juga pengobatan rumah alami yang dapat digunakan untuk menyingkirkan penyakit kutil kelamin ini. Intinya, karena kutil ini muncul di daerah yang sensitif, maka anda harus mencari pengobatan yang terbaik pada kulit Anda dan jika diperlukan juga dibantu dengan tenaga medis yang professional. Sebab dokter akan menjadi sumber informasi yang baik untuk mengobati penyakit ini.
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
MANTAB * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MANTAB * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *******
Cara yang sering di lakukan untuk menghilangkan kutil kelamin adalah dengan cara pembedahah atau operasi, cara ini tentu memerlukan dana yang tidak sedikit. metode Pilihan pembedahan yang dapat Anda lakukan
MANTAB * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **********
wkwkwkwkwkwkwkwkwkwkwkwkwkwkwkwkwkwkwkwkwk
Bismillaahirrohmaanirrokhiim ???????????????????????????????????
Bismillahhirrohmaanirrokhim.... *************************
Sekitar Vagina Tumbuh Daging, Berbahayakah? Kutil Pada Kepala Penis mirip bunga kol atau jengger ayam, Merupakan Penyakit Yang diakibatkan Oleh Virus.Kutil kelamin, atau disebut juga condyloma acuminata, adalah kutil atau daging berwarna kulit atau keabuan yang tumbuh di sekitar alat kelamin dan
Bismillahirrohmannirrokhim ..................
penyakit yang ditularkan melalui hubungan seks : vaginal, oral dan anal. Juga dapat menular melalui persentuhan kulit dengan daerah yang terinfeksi.
Sebelum kita membahas tentang pengobatan ambeien, dalam kesempatan ini
saya ingin menjelaskan sekilas tentang ambeien, agar kita semua bisa
memahami benar apa itu penyakit ambeien
Bismillahhirrohmaanirrokhim.... ***************************
Bismillahirrohmannirrokhim ......................................
Bismillahhirrohmaanirrokhim.... ************************************
???????????????????????????????????????
MANTAB???????????????????????????????
1111111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111111111111
manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur
alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami
Wasir atau dikenal juga dengan ambeien merupakan salah satu jenis penyakit
Wasir atau dikenal juga dengan ambeien merupakan salah satu jenis penyakit
yang sangat mengganggu. Ambeien atau wasir ini muncul..
yang sangat mengganggu. Ambeien atau wasir ini muncul..
obat ambeien wasir paling manjur mengobati penyakit wasir ambeien tanpa efek samping terbuat dari bahan alami herbal seperti daun ungu mahkota dewa kunyit putih
Assalamualaikum wr.wb, Salam Sehat semuanya. numpang komen ya gan.
Apabila menemukan ada daging atau seperti Kutil yang tumbuh di area kemaluan atau alat ...
Obat Kencing Nanah
Obat Herbal Kutil Kelamin
Obat Sipilis De Nature
Cara Menyembuhkan Kencing Keluar Nanah Ampuh
Cara Menyembuhkan Kencing Keluar Nanah Ampuh
Cara Menyembuhkan Kencing Keluar Nanah Ampuh
Cara Menyembuhkan Kencing Keluar Nanah Ampuh
Cara Menyembuhkan Kencing Keluar Nanah Ibu Hamil
Cara Menyembuhkan Kencing Keluar Nanah Ibu Hamil
Cara Menyembuhkan Kencing Keluar Nanah Ibu Hamil
Cara Menyembuhkan Kencing Keluar Nanah Ibu Hamil
Cara Menyembuhkan Kencing Keluar Nanah Di Apotik
Cara Menyembuhkan Kencing Keluar Nanah Di Apotik
Cara Menyembuhkan Kencing Keluar Nanah Di Apotik
Cara Menyembuhkan Kencing Keluar Nanah Di Apotik
Cara Menyembuhkan Kencing Keluar Nanah 3 Hari Sembuh
Cara Menyembuhkan Kencing Keluar Nanah 3 Hari Sembuh
Cara Menyembuhkan Kencing Keluar Nanah 3 Hari Sembuh
Cara Menyembuhkan Kencing Keluar Nanah 3 Hari Sembuh
Cara Mengatasi Kencing Keluar Nanah
Cara Mengatasi Kencing Keluar Nanah
Cara Mengatasi Kencing Keluar Nanah
Cara Mengatasi Kencing Keluar Nanah
Situs togel terpercaya
Togel Sydney
Togel Singapore
Togel Hongkong
You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view... Until you climb inside of his skin and walk around in it. https://medium.com/@chaster.bloom/obat-alami-ngilu2-di-pergelangan-tangan-2b510a939ca8
Post a Comment