T1B

By large margins, young people believe that Mr Obama can and will change the direction of the country. Their view that government should take an active role in society separates them from older voters. Young people want to see government try to solve problems, like environment and healthcare, and are willing to pay a little more in taxes to make it happen. Their view is indicative of a larger problem for the Republican party.

88 wrote:Don't even start talking about a tax increase. Let's just let the reality of the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts sink in for a while.

BSmack wrote:

88 wrote:Don't even start talking about a tax increase. Let's just let the reality of the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts sink in for a while.

Oh fear not, I am.

Tom In VA wrote:Okay dude, since you're idealogy has won the day, I need to educate myself. Maybe you're willing to help.

Why are you so happy about an increase in taxes ? They'll increase by default of course when the Bush cuts expire and then they'll go up - if Obama - succeeds in accomplishing his objectives.

That's good for us how ?

Tom In VA wrote:

BSmack wrote:

88 wrote:Don't even start talking about a tax increase. Let's just let the reality of the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts sink in for a while.

Oh fear not, I am.

Okay dude, since you're idealogy has won the day, I need to educate myself. Maybe you're willing to help.

Why are you so happy about an increase in taxes ? They'll increase by default of course when the Bush cuts expire and then they'll go up - if Obama - succeeds in accomplishing his objectives.

That's good for us how ?

88 wrote:Don't even start talking about a tax increase. Let's just let the reality of the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts sink in for a while.

poptart wrote:I can listen to those ignorant twiddlefucks for about 4 seconds, Tom.
Please find a shorter clip next time. haha

Goober McTuber wrote:If the expiring tax cuts we’re talking about start at $150,000, I don’t think you’ll have to worry, Tom.

Goober McTuber wrote: If the expiring tax cuts we’re talking about start at $150,000, I don’t think you’ll have to worry, Tom.

BSmack wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:If the expiring tax cuts we’re talking about start at $150,000, I don’t think you’ll have to worry, Tom.

They actually start at 250,000. Obama has made it clear that anybody making under 250k will not see a tax increase.

Tom In VA wrote:BSmack,

I work for a non-profit. Donations are key. Do you foresee people being able to donate more or less with an increase in taxes ? The argument could be made, high taxes are "good" I suppose in that it compels people to give to their chosen charities, and they can deduct those contributions. I can see that angle. But what do you think happens to charitable giving when taxes are so high ?

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:They actually start at 250,000. Obama has made it clear that anybody making under 250k will not see a tax increase.

And you're fucking stupid enough to believe him. He's not going to be able to pay for all his pie in sky fantasy bullshit by soaking the rich, you ignorant dumbfuck.

So guess fucking what that means for you?

BSmack wrote:Top down charity has been an utter failure. We are all better off when we are all better off, not when some billionaire decides to drop some table scraps on his tax shelter errr "foundation".

BSmack wrote: They actually start at 250,000. Obama has made it clear that anybody making under 250k will not see a tax increase. For him to violate that pledge would be like Bush 41 turning his back on his "No new taxes" pledge. Maybe I'm naive, but I don't expect Obama to commit political suicide anytime soon.

BSmack wrote: So I suspect you're adamantly opposed to a flat tax? Because that would kill the living fuck out of non profits.

Honestly, I don't have the foggiest idea what rich people do with their charity money when taxes are raised on them. Nor am I overly concerned. Top down charity has been an utter failure. We are all better off when we are all better off, not when some billionaire decides to drop some table scraps on his tax shelter errr "foundation".

Tom In VA wrote:

BSmack wrote: So I suspect you're adamantly opposed to a flat tax? Because that would kill the living fuck out of non profits.

Honestly, I don't have the foggiest idea what rich people do with their charity money when taxes are raised on them. Nor am I overly concerned. Top down charity has been an utter failure. We are all better off when we are all better off, not when some billionaire decides to drop some table scraps on his tax shelter errr "foundation".

I'll own up to being ignorant of a flat taxes impact on non profits.

Your candor is appreciated. I just don't know if there are models that exist where "we are all better off when we are all better off" based on compulsory redistribution of wealth. How long have been fighting a war on poverty ? A long time, longer than LBJ's declaration on such. "There's no end in sight". Is there an "exit strategy" ?

There just seems something, wrong, with the notion that self annointed people in power can choose who gets what. I'll take some from you to give to the other guy to level things out. Goes back to "choice" I suppose. As for redistributing the money by creating agencies which are geared towards producing something or providing some service. That's a slippery slope. I know we like to cite The New Deal and agencies like the TVA as an example of it's success.

Discussing these things with a co-worker, there is a model, it's called the Department of Defense. Money allotted for research and development - created jobs. Going back to DARPA of course, that created what we're communicating on. So, it would seem there is some validity in a model that employs government as a - employer for all intents and purposes - from an economic point of view. From a constitutional point of view, that's a whole different ball of wax. There are some things the Fed has no business getting involved in.

Left Seater wrote:So for him to not commit political suicide, he will have to extend or make permanent the Bush tax cuts. Otherwise, those under 250K will see a tax increase when the cuts sunset.

Now that would be great if he does it, but my guess is he will use double speak and blame previous administrations and congress when the tax cuts do sunset. Meanwhile those under 250 will see a tax increase.

1. Levee upgrades- Is it too much to ask that the United States have a levee system equal to that of Holland?

BSmack wrote:No, you will see legislation making cuts permanent for those under 250k. It's not exactly rocket science, Obama HAS to live up to that 250k promise or he'll be tarred and feathered for it.

BSmack wrote: I'll give you a list of just a few things the government needs to get involved in post haste that are not at all questionable from even the most rigid of strict constructionist models.

1. Levee upgrades- Is it too much to ask that the United States have a levee system equal to that of Holland?

local issue as LS has said. NOLA is a major port. Use the fees they collect to take care of this rather than stuffing freezers with it. Ofcourse, being NOLA, they will fukk it up. And they will be replaced.

2. Interstate highway bridges- We did a study on defective bridges after the I-35 collapse. There are hundreds of bridges that need repair. That work should be done as soon as humanly possible.

yes it should....on the state and local level

3. Updating the national power grid- There is no way we can become energy independent until the power grid is updated to allow for more domestic production capacity. This is absolutely essential.

The feds do have a roll here. That roll is to get the fukk out of the way and let the utility companies do what needs to be done. They have been trying to lay a transmission cable across long island sound for years, btu, connecticut's attention whore AG has been fighting it. The feds need to slap down such asshole and allow shit to get done. This is different from doing it themselves.

Those are just a few things only the federal Government an handle that need to get done NOW. And if they do get done, they will provide hundreds of thousands of new jobs for American workers.

Just a few huh? I guess that means there are more, right bri? Who decides which ones are worthy? The one with the best fukking lobbiest, that's who. Let it be handled on the lowest level possible. Thsi means YOU will have more say in how or if it's addressed. It's really a simple concept. Why the fukk can't libs grasp it?

BSmack wrote:Obama HAS to live up to that 250k promise or he'll be tarred and feathered for it.

BSmack wrote:Obama HAS to live up to that 250k promise or he'll be tarred and feathered for it.

War Wagon wrote:Meanwhile, the stock market is down big for the 2nd straight day. I guess the day traders aren't all that hopeful that the change Obama is going to bring is the kind one can believe in.

smackaholic wrote:

BSmack wrote: I'll give you a list of just a few things the government needs to get involved in post haste that are not at all questionable from even the most rigid of strict constructionist models.

1. Levee upgrades- Is it too much to ask that the United States have a levee system equal to that of Holland?

local issue as LS has said. NOLA is a major port. Use the fees they collect to take care of this rather than stuffing freezers with it. Of course, being NOLA, they will fukk it up. And they will be replaced.

2. Interstate highway bridges- We did a study on defective bridges after the I-35 collapse. There are hundreds of bridges that need repair. That work should be done as soon as humanly possible.

yes it should....on the state and local level

3. Updating the national power grid- There is no way we can become energy independent until the power grid is updated to allow for more domestic production capacity. This is absolutely essential.

The feds do have a roll here. That roll is to get the fukk out of the way and let the utility companies do what needs to be done. They have been trying to lay a transmission cable across long island sound for years, btu, connecticut's attention whore AG has been fighting it. The feds need to slap down such asshole and allow shit to get done. This is different from doing it themselves.

Those are just a few things only the federal Government an handle that need to get done NOW. And if they do get done, they will provide hundreds of thousands of new jobs for American workers.

Just a few huh? I guess that means there are more, right bri? Who decides which ones are worthy? The one with the best fukking lobbiest, that's who. Let it be handled on the lowest level possible. Thsi means YOU will have more say in how or if it's addressed. It's really a simple concept. Why the fukk can't libs grasp it?

BSmack wrote: We cannot allow the short term balance sheet interests of utility companies dictate our country's path to energy independence. It is imperative to our long term national security that we not be spending billions of dollars to protect our interests in Middle Eastern fossil fuel reserves..

Cuda wrote:

BSmack wrote: We cannot allow the short term balance sheet interests of utility companies dictate our country's path to energy independence. It is imperative to our long term national security that we not be spending billions of dollars to protect our interests in Middle Eastern fossil fuel reserves..

anybody have a gibberish to english translator handy?

Cuda wrote:

BSmack wrote: We cannot allow the short term balance sheet interests of utility companies dictate our country's path to energy independence. It is imperative to our long term national security that we not be spending billions of dollars to protect our interests in Middle Eastern fossil fuel reserves..

anybody have a gibberish to english translator handy?

If people choose to live and work in these areas then they need local levee boards to establish a tax rate for the construction and upkeep. People in Houston Texas are paying for ours and it works.

PSUFAN wrote:I completely agree with that. Is NOLA even habitable? Listen, folks...I love the place, really, I do...but it is (still) a disaster waiting to happen, and no amount of fed money can change that. At some point, the Gulf will close over your nostrils for the final time.

If you really give a fuck about your future, then best move out of a bowl that is below sea level.

Also, atop a cliff in Laguna Hills is a stupid place to build a mansion, and beachside houses in Malibu are no different.

BSmack wrote: Besides, people in the Netherlands have been living below sea level and have suffered storm surges comparable to or greater than Katrina with no major damage since 1953. This is not a matter of theory, this is technology that has been proven effective countless times. The trouble is, it is far too expensive for a single metro area, especially one that is still rebuilding from the last flood, to pay for and build such a flood control project.

smackaholic wrote:The big difference between the two is the netherlands is run by reasonably competent folks. it's a white euro thing. NOLA on the other hand is run by Democrats.