Topic: See I told you so!
started by: grassman
Posted by grassman on Aug. 24 2011,7:25 pm
Editorial: Taxed enough?Published 8:58am Wednesday, August 24, 2011
We doubt the local Republicans are thrilled with the Capitol Hill Republicans on this one.
The Republican Party fought tooth and nail against ending tax cuts for the wealthy earlier this summer when the debt-ceiling issue was at its zenith. They took a stand, would not compromise on the matter and largely prevailed.
However, this week, when it comes to tax cuts for the poor, the Republican Party is taking a different route. Apparently, Republicans in D.C. think it is OK for the poor to pay taxes.
The Associated Press reports that the Republicans on Capitol Hill in Washington want tax cuts for the poor to end as scheduled. The sunset of this cut would increase the amount the federal government takes from the paychecks of many wage earners.
The AP explained the tax cut this way: “This policy helps the 46 percent of all Americans who owe no federal income taxes but who pay a ‘payroll tax’ on practically every dime they earn.”
When asked about the payroll tax, some Republicans seem to dance about the issue, talking about how long-term solutions are needed. But when taxes on the rich were debated, they were adamant about the short-term impact raising taxes on the rich would have.
Are they concerned about the long term or short term? What is it?
Some Republicans on Capitol Hill, however, were more direct about their answers.
“It’s always a net positive to let taxpayers keep more of what they earn,” said Rep. Jeb Hensarling, “but not all tax relief is created equal for the purposes of helping to get the economy moving again.”
If you are from Albert Lea, make less than $106,800 and participated in one of the Tea Party protests in the area two years ago, we offer our condolences. You earned no breaks for yourself by speaking out against taxes.
President Obama wants the tax cut to continue for at least another year.
So we have a situation where the Democrats favor a tax cut and the Republicans do not. It sure is telling. Some Republicans flat out oppose too much taxes. But some Republicans, the ones in D.C., apparently, don’t mind if the poor pay taxes.
For all of you out there ready to kiss their a$$es, this is what you get. I told you but you just don't listen. Gnats in the wind. You don't matter one ioda.
Posted by Duck Hunter on Aug. 24 2011,7:51 pm
Kinda a stretch on your reasoning. The social security tax relief is not just for the poor. Everyone with taxable wages would go back to 6.2%.This is something they need to keep for another year or three until the economy is out of the dumps, but you also need to fund social security sometime, it is in bad enough shape.
I think we need to revamp the whole thing, let those opt out who want to. Keep the promise to those who want to stay, but tweak the benefits for anyone not in the system or within 10 years. Link SS to life expectancy.
Posted by Liberal on Aug. 24 2011,9:52 pm
I thought the teabaggers were all about lower taxes, not just lower taxes for the rich. You teabaggers all a bunch of useful idiots, talk radio, FOX noise, and the GOP tell you to jump, and you ask, "How high?". Some of you clowns even spent your hard earned money riding buses to DC to make sure the rich kept their tax breaks.
There's a sucker born every minute.
Posted by Duck Hunter on Aug. 25 2011,6:51 am
(Liberal @ Aug. 24 2011,9:52 pm)
QUOTE
I thought the teabaggers were all about lower taxes, not just lower taxes for the rich.
You teabaggers all a bunch of useful idiots, talk radio, FOX noise, and the GOP tell you to jump, and you ask, "How high?". Some of you clowns even spent your hard earned money riding buses to DC to make sure the rich kept their tax breaks.
There's a sucker born every minute.
You teabaggers all a bunch of useful idiots, talk radio, FOX noise, and the GOP tell you to jump, and you ask, "How high?". Some of you clowns even spent your hard earned money riding buses to DC to make sure the rich kept their tax breaks.
There's a sucker born every minute.
Who are you ranting to or about? You teabaggers?
Someone sounds pretty nervous!
I'm not for the T, but I think Obama needs to go. Look across the pond at what entitlements out of control.
Posted by Liberal on Aug. 25 2011,12:33 pm
Nervous about what? You don't actually think a teabagger could beat Obama, do you? 
Posted by Duck Hunter on Aug. 25 2011,12:56 pm
At this point anyone has a decent chance at beating Obama. The costume hiding his faults is off.
Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 25 2011,6:32 pm
What's the argument?Does the Tea Party NOT advocate for letting people keep more of the money they earned?
Does the Tea Party NOT advocate for shrinking government?
What's inconsistent about their position?
Aren't MOST people in favor of keeping more of their own money, rather than give it to the government to waste?
Why would ANYONE be in FAVOR of giving more money and power to the government?
Posted by Liberal on Aug. 25 2011,7:24 pm
There is no argument I think we all agree that you teabaggers are nut jobs. That's why the name teabaggers works so well, we couldn't have come up with a better name if you'd have let us name your party.
Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 26 2011,4:15 pm
Libbie-- QUOTE
· Posted on Aug. 24 2011,9:52 pm
I thought the teabaggers were all about lower taxes, not just lower taxes for the rich.
I thought the teabaggers were all about lower taxes, not just lower taxes for the rich.
I posted the things that the Tea Party is in FAVOR of--to which you responded
QUOTE
There is no argument I think we all agree that you teabaggers are nut jobs.
Here are the points again. How about ADDRESSING the issues, instead of doing the libbie dance of just calling names?
QUOTE
Does the Tea Party NOT advocate for letting people keep more of the money they earned?
Does the Tea Party NOT advocate for shrinking government?
What's inconsistent about their position?
Aren't MOST people in favor of keeping more of their own money, rather than give it to the government to waste?
Why would ANYONE be in FAVOR of giving more money and power to the government?
Does the Tea Party NOT advocate for shrinking government?
What's inconsistent about their position?
Aren't MOST people in favor of keeping more of their own money, rather than give it to the government to waste?
Why would ANYONE be in FAVOR of giving more money and power to the government?
Most RATIONAL people believe in these precepts. Why would liberals be OPPOSED to them--other than keeping people dependent on government--insuring their power base?
No problems=no need for more liberal big government--no need for Donks. CREATING--not SOLVING-- problems is the way that Dems keep their power base.
Maybe THAT'S why government is so inept!
Posted by Liberal on Aug. 27 2011,12:09 am
QUOTE
Most RATIONAL people believe in these precepts. Why would liberals be OPPOSED to them--other than keeping people dependent on government--insuring their power base?
What would a teabagger know about rational people?
It's funny how you don't seem to have a problem with the government spending 10 million dollars on a local airport. I guess it's only wasteful government spending when there's nothing in it for you.
Posted by Montyman on Aug. 27 2011,12:03 pm
[quote=Liberal,Aug. 27 2011,12:09 am] QUOTE
It's funny how you don't seem to have a problem with the government spending 10 million dollars on a local airport. I guess it's only wasteful government spending when there's nothing in it for you.
Haven't posted for a long time, but couldn't resist here...
That $10 million, or whatever amount it is, was for a project that was most likely selected from a list of projects that competed for a relatively small pool of money. And given that the infrastructure in this fine country is about grade level 'D' on a scale of A-E, I am pleased that Albert Lea got the money. On top of that the people who obtained the money should be commended.
The problem I see [from experience], is that project should have only cost 75%-80% of what it did because of the various rules, hoops, audits, wage rates, and other federal crap that comes from big government when we lucky people get some federal funding.
MM
Posted by Expatriate on Aug. 27 2011,2:40 pm
@MMLets spin the Airport off, privatization seems to be the cry of you teapartiers..
Do you suppose there's a financial institution that would loan the airport ten million for an upgrade, not a chance, they'd want to know how are you going repay the loan..It's projects like this that have bankrupted America, this old boys club is a financial tax burden on the working class..
IMO it should be sink or swim, the airport should pull it's own weight like any other business..
NO MORE TAX DOLLARS...
Posted by scruter on Aug. 27 2011,11:04 pm
There has got to be happy medium, jees you want goverment to run all our lives. That seems kind of irresponsible.
Posted by Montyman on Aug. 28 2011,12:20 pm
(scruter @ Aug. 27 2011,11:04 pm)
QUOTE
There has got to be happy medium, jees you want goverment to run all our lives. That seems kind of irresponsible.
Where did MY post say anthing like that?
MM
Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 29 2011,4:44 pm
Expatriate--95% of the cost of the project comes from the Airport and Airways Trust fund.The 5% local share is LESS than the average annual maintenance.
It's like a car--at some point, it is cheaper to get a new one than to keep fixing the old one.
In this case, the old one lasted 55 years.
What a bitter person you are--the city spends $400,000 and gets a $9 airport that brings the city up to speed with the REST of the local communities that have LONG SINCE upgraded their airports. We got at least an additional 15 years out of OUR airport.
Much of that money was spent here in town. Exactly HOW IS IT that you believe in Keynesian Economics (government spending to stimulate jobs) but not THIS one?
Pilots, airplane owners, charter operators, and passengers have been paying the tax to the FAA for DECADES. (Don't forget WHICH party implemented the tax).
Would you have all of these people
I'll make you a deal--DON'T TAX US--for the airport OR for Socialist Security (or Mediscare, OR Obamacare) and let us deal with these issues ourselves.
But that doesn't fit the libbie ideal of "redistribution of wealth by government."
Posted by Expatriate on Aug. 29 2011,5:24 pm
Once again Mr.Hanson leads the cheer for a handful of privileged individuals who utilize the Airport and some how deserve our tax dollars for their recreational enjoyment. Just because other podunks are squandering the nations wealth refurbishing desolate airports doesn't make it right or a smart return on our tax dollar..It's a mathematical impossibility that this handful of pilots have paid tax or fees to come anywhere near this size of expenditure.
No this type expenditure is passed on to the common man in the form of increased travel cost and out right taxation...
Posted by Liberal on Aug. 29 2011,6:38 pm
QUOTE
It's like a car--at some point, it is cheaper to get a new one than to keep fixing the old one.
In this case, the old one lasted 55 years.
The school and courthouse lasted longer and you opposed both of those projects.
Posted by Santorini on Aug. 29 2011,9:15 pm
(Liberal @ Aug. 25 2011,12:33 pm)
QUOTE
Nervous about what? You don't actually think a teabagger could beat Obama, do you?
Liberal, what you need to digest is that [Tea Party] is an ideology...the GROUP you refer to as [Tea Party] simply agree on this agenda, like;
Smaller Government
Job creation
Cut Wasteful spending
Pretty radical stuff wouldnt you agree
Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 30 2011,4:36 pm
Expatriate-- QUOTE
Just because other podunks are squandering the nations wealth refurbishing desolate airports doesn't make it right or a smart return on our tax dollar..
Yep--Expatriate knows better than EVERY COMMUNITY IN THE COUNTRY. Every OTHER community takes care of its airports, but Expatriate doesn't think it is a good idea.
Perhaps you would like to sever all exits from the freeways into town as well? After all, I saw some people pulling a boat--others pulling campers. Some people undoubtably were coming and going from sporting events--and we can't have people having FUN!
QUOTE
It's a mathematical impossibility that this handful of pilots have paid tax or fees to come anywhere near this size of expenditure.
As I said--most of us would be quite happy to have our gas taxes ELIMINATED and let airports take care of themselves. Several large airports did exactly that--until 2009, when the Obamunists cancelled the exemption that allowed them to institute their own taxes in lieu of Federal taxes. You can't have it both ways, Expatriate--either fund it through dedicated taxes, or allow airports to go their own way.
You never did deny your hypocrisy in advocating for Keynsian "stimulus" money for "infrastructure" (in reality, most Obama money was spent on existing social programs)--while having your panties in a wad over local spending from a dedicated Federal fund.
Contrast the Airport and Airways Trust Fund with the State of Minnesota gas tax--only HALF of which goes for infrastructure--the rest going to
Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 30 2011,4:40 pm
(Liberal @ Aug. 29 2011,6:38 pm)
QUOTE
QUOTE
It's like a car--at some point, it is cheaper to get a new one than to keep fixing the old one.
In this case, the old one lasted 55 years.
The school and courthouse lasted longer and you opposed both of those projects.
Those are BUILDINGS, dodo. There's a big difference. How many HIGHWAYS last that long without rebuilding?
Asphalt pavement rots from the bottom up. At some point, it can't be resurfaced any more.
The hangars, the offices, and the furniture are 40 years old--but asphalt surfaces in Minnesota? Not likely to last without maintenance.
Posted by ThirdParty on Aug. 31 2011,5:28 pm
Incredible. Way to go Albert Lea. Any outsider reading these forums would have to come up with some pretty negative conclusions. You have a guy named Al Batt (known as AL B from Hartland in the St. Paul paper), whose crime it is to inform on wildlife. He must have been a dangerous man, Al had to be scorched in this forum. Albert Lea airport is able to secure a portion of funds that is available to those who know how to get it, in order to update a long overdue improvement to the local airport (at little or no cost to the local community) and you get outrage and name calling from 10 year olds? What the hell? Constantly, people are asked opinions on where to buy a lawnmower, buy a car etc. The response is character and business assasinations in triplicate. The examples are endless. Our group has never seen anything like this, a community (?) so eager to tear itself apart and shoot itself in the foot. On occasion you get some good point and counterpoint, but most often the dialogue just returns to the gutter. Too bad, there are some smart people on here. It makes for fascinating theater.
Posted by Liberal on Aug. 31 2011,7:26 pm
What you consider assassination, others might call advice.
Posted by Liberal on Aug. 31 2011,7:31 pm
As far as the airport, for the second time. The jimmy opposes any tax dollars being spent, on every local project. School district can't spend a dime without the jimmy complaining, same for the County Board, the Watershed board, you name it, he's against it. Then when it comes time to spend a half million local tax dollars, and 9.5 million other tax dollars on the airport, all of the sudden he's the head cheerleader for the government project.You can't expect to be a hypocrite and not get called on it around here.