Forgot your password?
Type your email address below and click the sign up button to create an account.
Some of our posters make a very good point about the % of gays in the military and the population. Likewise they call upon logic to question whether the issue is worthy of being prominently placed before us. Most of the speakers also hold some minority points of view and want their priorities addressed ASAP. The values we share greatly exceed those that pit us against one another. Justice, equality, representation and personal rights bind us as one nation of many faiths, beliefs, social connections, races, and aspirations. We all want to be safe and to pursue happiness. Persons of both genders fall in love irrespective of the other's plumbing and want to commit to family each other and their prodigy. To humiliate, forbid or deny their love is to be un-loving; and to more toward those who kill, imprison or deny such persons the benefits of our Country. Regardless of anyone's opinion, all who are citizens and who love another have the right to do so within the Declaration. To deny is to lose your own rights. Preach, teach, decry, debate, inspire, defend, achieve, believe and be American. Such are your rights and to take it away from one of us is to lose your place in this nation. Marriage, DADT, employment and educational rights are not the privilege of bullies, bigots or those seeking to imitate the Reich, the Terror, the Inquisition, Attila, Idi Amin, or Apartheid. Say rather, our higher selves can be found in the Beatitudes. Let us gather around the Mound. If we have killed our heart, let it come forth. If we have blinded ourselves, let us remove the mote. If we have taken on the terrible trouble of tormenting our families, out neighhors, our nation...let us not forget the inheritance of wind that must come. Within the past, present and surely the future of each of us there are blood bonds with he or she who, although they are among the minority, make us whole. Love, for there is no hurt in loving. Love, for life itself is good. Love, for all beliefs and all blessing within, entwined and encircled by loving each other. For it is in understanding and sharing and caring for each other that we love. Thank you and may Love help you to think and to thank all those who love.
The liberal wing of the Democratic Party needs to shut up.
Some sobering comments from David Stockman:
Back to the subject at hand....
I see on the nightly news that President Obama enlisted former President Clinton to, preach?, cheer lead, whatever, to the democratic congress members about the tax cut bill. Seems to be a good idea to me, Mr. Clinton said some good things.
IMO, a increase of the top tax rate proposed by Gates and Buffet, seems like a fair proposal. After all those two people have donated tons of money to charity, the Facebook guy has also pledged to donate tons of cash to charity. So if they can donated $ to charity, why not some to uncle Sam?
The inheritance tax... that always seemed like double taxation to me, but so does sales tax, you pay tax when you make $, you pay tax why you spend it, and your heirs pay tax on it when you die. I guess that's triple taxation.
I think we all profited from the 1990s boom that the dot.com created but it came down in a hurry when AOL,Dell, Cisco Systems,IBM and other IT stocks came tumbling down... The programmers and the young entrepreneurs really didn't have a business plan for lean times... Google and Amazon came out of it quite nicely and surviving the rough spots.
"he was right when he said that only the wealthy benefited from the bubbles" Well except for the dot com bubble that is. Lots of poor programmers made out like bandits to.
Mike,With all due respect to your column, Pelosi is throwing out the spider web, it’s a last ditch pitch for the hard core liberal.
DADT, I don not understand the importance of it, it happen under Clinton. So is there something going to happen if it’s not done anytime in the near future that we need to be aware of? Dang they “the gays” don’t even make up a one % of the population. Is it something that is going to change the world over night? Give it a rest, there is a hell of a lot more important issues on the table than DADT.
Bush tax cuts, why not? What in the hell is the problem, congress caused all this debt, it sure was not the taxpayer? Most of it was from your dang party.
That's a very long cut and paste from Wikipedia but do you agree with the post?What is YOUR opinion?
Do you believe in supply side economics' or that deficits don't matter, as Dick Cheney said?What is YOUR opinion?What is YOUR opinion?
Was it just a post to attend to discredit David Stockman because if that's the case, I have several more when it came from?
Then again, you believe we should not out angry the top 2% because our sugar daddy would no longer support us....lol..... Just last week, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Ted Turner and others have supported increasing the top bracket by 4%.... Only taxable income that's above $250,000 will be taxed at the top rate. Whether you like David Stockman or not he was right when he said that only the wealthy benefited from the bubbles; he was absolutely correct; it's time to pay the piper.
Stockman emerged as one of the most powerful and controversial OMB directors ever during a tenure that lasted until his resignation in August 1985. Committed to the doctrine of supply-side economics, he took the lead in directing passage of the "Reagan Budget" (the Gramm-Latta Budget), which Stockman hoped to be a serious curtailment of the "welfare state", gaining a reputation as a tough negotiator with House Speaker Tip O'Neill's Democratic-controlled House of Representatives and Majority Leader Howard Baker's Republican-controlled Senate. During this period, although only in his early 30s, Stockman played a central and highly visible role as the ultimate "budget guru" in the fierce debate and contentious political wrangling over the future direction of the role of the federal government in American society.
Stockman's power within the Reagan Administration waned after the Atlantic Monthly magazine published the famous 18,246 word article, "The Education of David Stockman", in its December 1981 issue, based on lengthy interviews Stockman gave to reporter William Greider. It led to Stockman's being "taken to the woodshed by Reagan" as the White House's public relations team attempted to limit the article's damage to Reagan's perceived fiscal-leadership skills. Stockman was quoted as referring to the Reagan Revolution's legacy tax act as: "I mean, Kemp-Roth [Reagan's 1981 tax cut] was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate.... It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down.' So the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory." Of the budget process in his first year on the job, Mr. Stockman is quoted as saying: "None of us really understands what's going on with all these numbers," which was used as the subtitle of the article.
After Stockman's first year at OMB and on the heels of "being taken to the woodshed by the president" over his candor with Atlantic's William Greider, Stockman became inspired with the projected trend of increasingly large federal deficits and the rapidly expanding national debt. On 1 August 1985, he left OMB and later wrote a memoir of his experience in the Reagan Administration titled The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed, in which he specifically criticized the failure of congressional Republicans to support a reduction in government spending as necessary offsets to the large tax cuts, in order to avoid the creation of large deficits and an exploding national debt.
In August 2003, Stockman installed himself as CEO of Collins & Aikman Corp., a Detroit-based manufacturer of automotive interior components. He was ousted from that role days before a Chapter 11 filing on May 17, 2005.
Had his nose where it did not belong. Regan was right. However, he was getting stabbed in the back by this fool.
Today, "trickle-down economics" is most closely identified with the economic policies known as Reaganomics or supply-side economics. Originally, there was a great deal of support for tax reform; there was a dual problem that loopholes and tax shelters create a bureaucracy (private sector and public sector) and that relevant taxes are thus evaded. During Ronald Reagan's presidency, the Democratic Party-controlled House, at the urging of President Reagan, cut the marginal tax rate on the highest-income tax bracket from 70% to 28%.
A major feature of these policies was the reduction of tax rates on capital gains, corporate income, and higher individual incomes, along with the reduction or elimination of various excise taxes. David Stockman, who as Reagan's budget director championed these cuts at first but then became skeptical of them, told journalist William Greider that the term "supply-side economics" was used to promote a trickle-down idea.
As usual, we are 180° apart.
I'm reading about the 1929 Great Depression where all the wealth was concentrated at the very top, leaving no money to buy the goods. That wasn't the cause but it left us more vulnerable...Once the top 2% buy the automobiles, food and shelter, they need, they don't purchase any more, they save.... If the middle class does not have enough disposable income, who will buy the big ticket items?.. I've seen several graphs that showed when the wealthy were taxed at 70% and unions bargained for better wages, working conditions and benefits, we prospered.. We don’t have strong unions anymore but the more you tax the top 2% the less the middle class will have to pay.. The Bush tax cuts have been in place since 2001; there are charts galore but will show the widening gap between rich and the poor..... In 1985 the top 5% owned $8 trillion of worth, today they own 40 trillion. It's not just me saying that; it's a conservative's conservative, President Ronald Reagan's budget Director David Stockman, who said "We've demonized taxes" All right. We've created almost the idea they're a metaphysical evil," he said..He says there should be a one-time 15 percent surtax on the wealthy that he estimates would cut the national debt in half.
"In 1985, the top five percent of the households, wealthiest five percent, had a net worth of $8 trillion, which is a lot. Today, after serial bubble after serial bubble, the top five percent has a net worth of $40 trillion," he explained. "The top five percent has gained more wealth than the whole human race had created prior to 1980."
Trickle-down economics has never worked and it won't work now, or ever. Now if those tax breaks were contigent on them using the money to boost our economy HERE, then maybe. Companies that have shipped jobs overseas, should not get any kind of tax breaks, nor should those that moved their operation offshore for the sole purpose of avoiding taxes, get any kind of tax breaks.If they want taxpayers money, they should be bound to use it for America and it's workers and it's economy. If that makes me sound like a socialist, then so be it. America cannot compete worldwide and it's about time that someone came out and passed policies to keep our jobs here, either by force, or by taxation. The world needs American consumers, to survive, and they are getting choked out, which is apparent in the failing economies overseas.
I personally think trickle down economics is the only way it can work currently. Why piss off the people with the money? That is like biting the hand that feeds you. Big Business has gotten so big that if you take away the tax breaks for those 2 percent you will only be shooting yourself in the foot. It will not trickle down. It will stay right where it is. JMO
Yes, but what is happening now is bringing a lot more of the politics to center stage. The republicans were ready to let people starve and lose everything they had just so millionairs could get more money. They were the ones crying about the deficit and now they just added to it. President Obamas base is angry now, but in 2 years, they will know it was the right thing to do for the economy and for children and for those that cannot help themselves.There will always be those selfish people that don't give a squat about anyone besides themselves, but I have faith in those who care about the poor and downtrodden.I may be wrong, but I'd rather be wrong than think that America's core values stand for greed instead of charity.
You might be right but I don't see how alienating his base will help President Obama in the future, when republicans have a greater advantage. You have a lot more faith in the American voter than I do..... The voter always seems to fall for sound bites like " I want to let you keep more of your money" which is just code for reducing taxes for the top 2%, hoping it will magically trickle down.
You're absolutely right; it's gonna be an interesting two years but at some point we're going to have to get serious about reducing the deficit and the debt.
The democrats have finally started to fight. They have 2 years to paint this in their favor. I think the Republicans have been "had" in some ways. I think President Obama was very smart in doing it this way. He's the one that comes across as willing to work with the other side and including them in the process and he is the one willing to compromise, which the American public wants. I think the Republicans will start to figure out that the old adage of "Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it" rings very true.The next two years are going to be very interesting.
A very good summation and I never even considered what the GOP would have done if the president would have said no from the very beginning. Like you said, the republicans have been silent on the issue, and they are letting the democrats do the dirty work of passing the high end tax cut for them.
In two years when this issue will come up again, will the president put up an actual fight with the GOP? Will he go to Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Maine to get those constituents to put pressures on their legislators?
Employees will see a reduction of the employee's share of FICA taxes to 4.2% from 6.2...This issue might come to bite democrats, when they have to raise it back up to 6.2% because the GOP will say that the democrats want to raise your taxes.
I see where Independent senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, is filibustering the bill... He's doing it the old fashion way.
I can see why President Obama did what he did. He vowed to protect the middle class when he was elected. He didn't want to take the chance of them being hurt the most by just letting Bush tax cuts expire, and the unemployment checks run out for so many .Sure, those of us who have a check coming in really wanted him to fight, but in all reality, all of us would have been sorry if the Republicans had stalled and let everything expire. To me, this is the first initiative that he took that didn't make him look like he always stayed in the background.It also defines the difference between the two parties like nothing else could.I'm confident that the Republicans are going to overshoot and shoot themselves in the foot in the next 2 years. Have you wondered why you haven't been hearing them brag? I think it is because they fully expected President Obama to say no. They had their fight all ready, but when he did that, they had nothing to say. They had to scramble to find a way to come out smelling like the rose they thought they were going to smell like, instead of the manure that they came out smelling like. Heck, even this forum was unusually quiet on the matter.Like I said before, people are hurting and those hurting the most are going to be avid voters for the next election. The middle class is shrinking by alarming proportion and those that the Republicans were holding hostage to get the tax breaks for their rich buddies, will remember in 2012.