Geithner predicts Republicans will accept higher tax rates

Dec 2, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Reuters

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner pressed Republicans to offer a plan to increase revenues and cut government spending, and predicted they would agree to raise tax rates on the wealthiest to secure a deal by year-end to avoid the "fiscal cliff." In a blitz of appearances on five Sunday morning talk shows, Geithner insisted that tax rates on the ... (more)

Comments (Page 8)

Showing posts 141 - 160 of247
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Far Away

Anchorage, AK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155
Dec 4, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Marine Corp Pat wrote:
The republicans have no choice; the American people elected Obama in a landslide with a mandate to do whatever he wants… It is going to be great to watch the right go kicking and scream all the way to the point of President Obama raising taxes on the rich, LOL, I love it.
Landslide? What election were you watching? By the way, the American people left the pursestrings in the hands of Republicans, so apparently didn't trust Democrats or Řbama with the fiscal side of the equation.

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#156
Dec 4, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

Chicopee wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the Presidents back is against the wall. If the tax cuts expire and the middle class gets slammed (after years of the steady chorus of "Bush cut taxes only for the rich!"), people aren't going to remember the blame-game details. It will simply be on the Presidents record.
Likewise, if the President gets what he's asking for and the job market gets signifigantly worse, that's on him, too.
This US and THEM BS is childish. "We will win"? Who's We? Unless both parties come to a workable compromise, all of us are going to lose, regardless of party affiliation.
Obama will find a way to pass the buck because the Republicans seem unable, whether through idiocy or intent, to hold the man accountable for anything at all.
Far Away

Anchorage, AK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157
Dec 4, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dane Thorsen wrote:
The Voters gave Pres. Obama a mandate to increase taxes, fees and business choking regulations in order to increase unemployment while piling ever more trillions in deficits on our unsuspecting children and grand children.
All Hail THE Obama!!!
The voters didn't give Řbama a mandate for anything on fiscal issues because they left the House in Republican hands, which is where spending and taxing legislation originates. In other words, voters tied his hands to keep them out of their pockets.
Far Away

Anchorage, AK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158
Dec 4, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

OneRyder wrote:
Of course they will, if not, they have to figure out how to pay for that additional taxcut for the top 2% in the country.
Funny how the "no compromise" party now complains that the current offer from the President is not a compromise..
lol. Of course it's now.
Now come back with your reasons why you won't allow a vote on a keeping the taxcut proposed for all ALL Americans on the first 250k.
It isn't a sign of compromise when Řbama doubles the ante.
proudbeamerica n

Staten Island, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#159
Dec 4, 2012
 
American Heroes Part 4

Someone must keep this city clean. A man rises to the call. He will take the Sanitation test! He will work for a public municipality. Years of study are finally going to pay off. He is one of the lucky 99.99% who managed to pass the grueling exam. The skill set he will offer the public as a public servant is nothing short of extraordinary. He has the ability to pick up a garbage can, remove the lid, empty the contents of said can into back of truck, and place (and this is where is gets difficult) the can back on the sidewalk. He will repeat this complex skill set many times over during the less than six hours he actually works each day. His union will assure that no can is too heavy or that he has to pick up too many of them on any particular day. His chances of ever getting fired are zero. This man or mule must not exert himself too much because replacing the complex skill set he has mastered is difficult and costly. A $8.00 to $10.00 hr skill set in the private sector (the real world)is suddenly priceless. He must be treated and almost paid like a skilled surgeon on the taxpayer dime. His day must include multiple breaks, sleeping in the cab of the truck, and randomly leaving cans untouched on garbage day for reasons unknown. Eventually, someone notices he is exceptional at picking up cans, removing the lids, emptying them and placing them back on the sidewalk and so he becomes a supervisor who gets to watch others do what he has been overpaid to do up until that point. Eventually, this civil servant will retire at 45 with a tax free pension of $130,000 a year and full medical benefits. Of course a pension should be based on the last few years of your salary which is bloated by overtime. It's only the taxpayers money!! Of course, all city workers manage to go out on some kind of disability pension-that why they are only able to put in 30 hours a week during their second career.

Why would anyone oppose a tax increase?
proudbeamerica n

Staten Island, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#160
Dec 4, 2012
 
Ratliff wrote:
<quoted text>
In Iowa and New Hampshire, states without big minority populations, Obama won by gaining the support of nearly six in 10 women. Obama won 71% of the Asian-American vote. From the exit polls, President Obama’s support from men slipped a few points from 49% four years ago, but women supported the president over Romney by 55% to 44%.
What happened to that support as far as the House of Representatives? What is a little surprising is the Asian-American vote-those people actually do like to work-unlike most Democrats. As far as the Japanese I guess most forgot that FDR put their grandparents in concentration camps or if you prefer internment camps during WW2. Or that Truman dropped a few bombs on them. Who knows?
The Chinese are another story-I think since most of them can't read or speak English (so much for the melting pot theory) that they didn't know who they were voting for. For the love of God-learn the language!!! Of course being Chinese means being very familiar with socialism and perhaps they were more comfortable voting for a socialist-Chairman Obama.

Since: Mar 09

The Left Coast

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#161
Dec 4, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Ratliff wrote:
<quoted text>
In Iowa and New Hampshire, states without big minority populations, Obama won by gaining the support of nearly six in 10 women. Obama won 71% of the Asian-American vote. From the exit polls, President Obama’s support from men slipped a few points from 49% four years ago, but women supported the president over Romney by 55% to 44%.
Free contraceptives is a powerful incentive.

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162
Dec 4, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

yup wrote:
<quoted text>
Meanwhile you’re still getting your brain washed with Drugs Limbaugh and Fux Views. You may as well smoke meth – which I’d bet you do anyway given the brain-damaged BS you post a thousand times a day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch.. .
7 Lies In Under 2 Minutes. Obama is still the champ.
the rest of us

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#163
Dec 4, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

conservative crapola wrote:
<quoted text>
boner is a puss because he can't stand up to the teaboogers. lejimfraud is a puss because he's always wrong.
hahahahahahahaha
Being a dumb, vile leftist is no way to go through life son.
Ratliff

Orlando, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#164
Dec 4, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

au contraire wrote:
<quoted text> http://www.youtube.com/watch ...
7 Lies In Under 2 Minutes. Obama is still the champ.
Real history of what really happens in the real world (instead of rightwing fantasies): National debt was irrelevant to the collapse of Iceland. What melted down the Iceland economy was PRIVATE BANK DEBT set off by DEREGULATION.

"The 2008–2012 Icelandic financial crisis is a major economic and political crisis in Iceland that involved the collapse of all three of the country's major commercial banks following their difficulties in refinancing their short-term debt and a run on deposits in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Relative to the size of its economy, Iceland’s banking collapse is the largest suffered by any country in economic history.[1]
In late September 2008, it was announced that the Glitnir bank would be nationalised. The following week, control of Landsbanki and Glitnir was handed over to receivers appointed by the Financial Supervisory Authority (FME). Soon after that, the same organization placed Iceland's largest bank, Kaupthing, into receivership as well. Commenting on the need for emergency measures, Prime Minister Geir Haarde said on 6 October, "There [was] a very real danger ... that the Icelandic economy, in the worst case, could be sucked with the banks into the whirlpool and the result could have been national bankruptcy."[2] He also stated that the actions taken by the government had ensured that the Icelandic state would not actually go bankrupt.[3] At the end of the second quarter 2008, Iceland's external debt was 9.553 trillion Icelandic krónur (€50 billion), more than 80% of which was held by the banking sector.[4] This value compares with Iceland's 2007 gross domestic product of 1.293 trillion krónur (€8.5 billion).[5] The assets of the three banks taken under the control of the FME totaled 14.437 trillion krónur at the end of the second quarter 2008.[6]"

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#165
Dec 4, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Ratliff wrote:
<quoted text>
Real history of what really happens in the real world (instead of rightwing fantasies): National debt was irrelevant to the collapse of Iceland. What melted down the Iceland economy was PRIVATE BANK DEBT set off by DEREGULATION.
"The 2008–2012 Icelandic financial crisis is a major economic and political crisis in Iceland that involved the collapse of all three of the country's major commercial banks following their difficulties in refinancing their short-term debt and a run on deposits in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Relative to the size of its economy, Iceland’s banking collapse is the largest suffered by any country in economic history.[1]
In late September 2008, it was announced that the Glitnir bank would be nationalised. The following week, control of Landsbanki and Glitnir was handed over to receivers appointed by the Financial Supervisory Authority (FME). Soon after that, the same organization placed Iceland's largest bank, Kaupthing, into receivership as well. Commenting on the need for emergency measures, Prime Minister Geir Haarde said on 6 October, "There [was] a very real danger ... that the Icelandic economy, in the worst case, could be sucked with the banks into the whirlpool and the result could have been national bankruptcy."[2] He also stated that the actions taken by the government had ensured that the Icelandic state would not actually go bankrupt.[3] At the end of the second quarter 2008, Iceland's external debt was 9.553 trillion Icelandic krónur (€50 billion), more than 80% of which was held by the banking sector.[4] This value compares with Iceland's 2007 gross domestic product of 1.293 trillion krónur (€8.5 billion).[5] The assets of the three banks taken under the control of the FME totaled 14.437 trillion krónur at the end of the second quarter 2008.[6]"
Were you wanting to say something or just use up banwidth?

Since: Oct 08

Alpharetta, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#166
Dec 4, 2012
 

Judged:

1

That American heroes series is good reading, when does the movie come out? Keep it up, so far thats been the highlight of topix this week.
proudbeamerica n

Staten Island, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#169
Dec 4, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

inbred Genius wrote:
That American heroes series is good reading, when does the movie come out? Keep it up, so far thats been the highlight of topix this week.
Thanks. I am simply taking a page out of the liberal bible; Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. Demonize, denigrate and insult the opposition. The "American Heroes" series disregards the carefully crafted myth that liberals have created to somehow rationalize or justify these sloths living off the taxpayer and exposes them for what they really are-useless and unproductive parasites. I am taking the gloves off.
Far Away

Anchorage, AK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170
Dec 4, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

proudbeamerica n wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks. I am simply taking a page out of the liberal bible; Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. Demonize, denigrate and insult the opposition. The "American Heroes" series disregards the carefully crafted myth that liberals have created to somehow rationalize or justify these sloths living off the taxpayer and exposes them for what they really are-useless and unproductive parasites. I am taking the gloves off.
Clearly, the gloves are off. There was a time when there was some amount of humility if not down-right shame in going on welfare; I remember it in the late sixties-early seventies, but no more so much. Maybe your approach is the way to go.
proudbeamerica n

Staten Island, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#171
Dec 4, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

American Heroes Part 5

The liberal woman is a shining example of dignity and personal responsibility. That is why she is my hero. Think of a dead ringer for 20 year old Elena Kagan (when she was in her prime!!) who actually likes men. These gals love to feel liberated. They control their bodies. But they insist the taxpayer ponies up for their birth control pills and abortions. They never touch meat except on girls night out. These desperados think men are actually interested in their minds and hope men will give them a pass for their pixie cuts and unkempt appearance. They still haven't figured out that when looking for a mate it helps to be attractive. They do manage to procreate however and when they do-it's off to the abortion clinic with the guys money. They never seem to go dutch when it comes to the annual trip to Planned Parenthood. Can't let a fetus stand in the way of the next promotion.
Nothing will stand in the way of these ladies. Career is everything. These gals are career driven-there is no doubt-so driven in fact that they typically wait until they are 47 before they have kids. They always have a plan. Sometimes having 4 or 5 abortions during your youth makes it tougher to actually have a kid when you are ready. But what do I know. As far as kids, the story typically ends with them sitting on the coach in their loft, well past their prime, with their community activist husband (who's still finding himself)looking through the classifieds for a surrogate mother and a sperm donor. How romantic! The good news is they get to use some other woman as a baby factory who surrenders all parental rights for some cash. Such compassion! Limpy, her live in partner, also gets to proudly boast to the neighbors that he is also pregnant.

After, the stork delivers-I mean they drive cross country to wrestle their child from the hands of the biological mother-they resume their selfless lives lecturing everyone else on how to live theirs. Their child, who is dressed in the clothes of the opposite sex purposely to assure it determines its own sex, is placed in the loving care of an undocemented nanny fron Ecuador that speaks no English and pays no taxes.

If only Norman Rockwell were alive to paint a picture of the American family.

proudbeamerica n

Staten Island, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172
Dec 4, 2012
 
Far Away wrote:
<quoted text>
Clearly, the gloves are off. There was a time when there was some amount of humility if not down-right shame in going on welfare; I remember it in the late sixties-early seventies, but no more so much. Maybe your approach is the way to go.
It is the way to go. Liberals have for too long dished out the insults and gotten away with it. The fact is, their core base of parasites and non producers provides far too much material to not ridicule. It feels great to be mean. You know what is mean? Picking taxpayers pockets to subsidize the lazy and irresponsible. That's mean.

Since: Oct 08

Alpharetta, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173
Dec 4, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

proudbeamerica n wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks. I am simply taking a page out of the liberal bible; Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. Demonize, denigrate and insult the opposition. The "American Heroes" series disregards the carefully crafted myth that liberals have created to somehow rationalize or justify these sloths living off the taxpayer and exposes them for what they really are-useless and unproductive parasites. I am taking the gloves off.
I'm doing my part too..last night I keyed a libs hybrid at Starbucks, then went inside to tease him about it, and see what kind of man he was...the place was full of ponytailed ex-hippies, but I found him, he was sitting there in his birkenstocks, sipping a double espresso cappucino latte and bashing Bush on the wifi. When I told him about his car, he fainted and soiled himself. tough guy.

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174
Dec 4, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Sounds a lot like Obama. He must have been born in the desert section of Kenya. You know No mans land. He just can't man up.
Ratliff

Orlando, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176
Dec 4, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

proudbeamerica n wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks. I am simply taking a page out of the liberal bible; Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. Demonize, denigrate and insult the opposition. The "American Heroes" series disregards the carefully crafted myth that liberals have created to somehow rationalize or justify these sloths living off the taxpayer and exposes them for what they really are-useless and unproductive parasites. I am taking the gloves off.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scien...

Why Liberals Are More Intelligent Than Conservatives
Liberals think they’re more intelligent than conservatives because they are

It is difficult to define a whole school of political ideology precisely, but one may reasonably define liberalism (as opposed to conservatism) in the contemporary United States as the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others. In the modern political and economic context, this willingness usually translates into paying higher proportions of individual incomes in taxes toward the government and its social welfare programs. Liberals usually support such social welfare programs and higher taxes to finance them, and conservatives usually oppose them.

Defined as such, liberalism is evolutionarily novel. Humans (like other species) are evolutionarily designed to be altruistic toward their genetic kin, their friends and allies, and members of their deme (a group of intermarrying individuals) or ethnic group. They are not designed to be altruistic toward an indefinite number of complete strangers whom they are not likely ever to meet or interact with. This is largely because our ancestors lived in a small band of 50-150 genetically related individuals, and large cities and nations with thousands and millions of people are themselves evolutionarily novel.

The examination of the 10-volume compendium The Encyclopedia of World Cultures, which describes all human cultures known to anthropology (more than 1,500) in great detail, as well as extensive primary ethnographies of traditional societies, reveals that liberalism as defined above is absent in these traditional cultures. While sharing of resources, especially food, is quite common and often mandatory among hunter-gatherer tribes, and while trade with neighboring tribes often takes place, there is no evidence that people in contemporary hunter-gatherer bands freely share resources with members of other tribes.

Because all members of a hunter-gatherer tribe are genetic kin or at the very least friends and allies for life, sharing resources among them does not qualify as an expression of liberalism as defined above. Given its absence in the contemporary hunter-gatherer tribes, which are often used as modern-day analogs of our ancestral life, it may be reasonable to infer that sharing of resources with total strangers that one has never met or is not likely ever to meet – that is, liberalism – was not part of our ancestral life. Liberalism may therefore be evolutionarily novel, and the Hypothesis would predict that more intelligent individuals are more likely than less intelligent individuals to espouse liberalism as a value.

Analyses of large representative samples, from both the United States and the United Kingdom, confirm this prediction. In both countries, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to be liberals than less intelligent children. For example, among the American sample, those who identify themselves as “very liberal” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 106.4, whereas those who identify themselves as “very conservative” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 94.8.
Ratliff

Orlando, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#177
Dec 4, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

inbred Genius wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm doing my part too..last night I keyed a libs hybrid at Starbucks, then went inside to tease him about it, and see what kind of man he was...the place was full of ponytailed ex-hippies, but I found him, he was sitting there in his birkenstocks, sipping a double espresso cappucino latte and bashing Bush on the wifi. When I told him about his car, he fainted and soiled himself. tough guy.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scien...

Why Liberals Are More Intelligent Than Conservatives
Liberals think they’re more intelligent than conservatives because they are

It is difficult to define a whole school of political ideology precisely, but one may reasonably define liberalism (as opposed to conservatism) in the contemporary United States as the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others. In the modern political and economic context, this willingness usually translates into paying higher proportions of individual incomes in taxes toward the government and its social welfare programs. Liberals usually support such social welfare programs and higher taxes to finance them, and conservatives usually oppose them.

Defined as such, liberalism is evolutionarily novel. Humans (like other species) are evolutionarily designed to be altruistic toward their genetic kin, their friends and allies, and members of their deme (a group of intermarrying individuals) or ethnic group. They are not designed to be altruistic toward an indefinite number of complete strangers whom they are not likely ever to meet or interact with. This is largely because our ancestors lived in a small band of 50-150 genetically related individuals, and large cities and nations with thousands and millions of people are themselves evolutionarily novel.

The examination of the 10-volume compendium The Encyclopedia of World Cultures, which describes all human cultures known to anthropology (more than 1,500) in great detail, as well as extensive primary ethnographies of traditional societies, reveals that liberalism as defined above is absent in these traditional cultures. While sharing of resources, especially food, is quite common and often mandatory among hunter-gatherer tribes, and while trade with neighboring tribes often takes place, there is no evidence that people in contemporary hunter-gatherer bands freely share resources with members of other tribes.

Because all members of a hunter-gatherer tribe are genetic kin or at the very least friends and allies for life, sharing resources among them does not qualify as an expression of liberalism as defined above. Given its absence in the contemporary hunter-gatherer tribes, which are often used as modern-day analogs of our ancestral life, it may be reasonable to infer that sharing of resources with total strangers that one has never met or is not likely ever to meet – that is, liberalism – was not part of our ancestral life. Liberalism may therefore be evolutionarily novel, and the Hypothesis would predict that more intelligent individuals are more likely than less intelligent individuals to espouse liberalism as a value.

Analyses of large representative samples, from both the United States and the United Kingdom, confirm this prediction. In both countries, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to be liberals than less intelligent children. For example, among the American sample, those who identify themselves as “very liberal” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 106.4, whereas those who identify themselves as “very conservative” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 94.8.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 141 - 160 of247
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Social Security Discussions

Search the Social Security Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Mother, 3 children disappear from Wartburg (Jul '10) Thu hmmm 13
SS Survivor Benefits Wed WE PORK HICKS 4
jump to more on SSA (Dec '13) Wed WE PORK HICKS 22
vegas spinners Wed Ball Buster 23
Percentage of Americans on welfare hits record ... Jul 9 CentsOfEntitlement 1
Students to eat free at 24 Winston-Salem/Forsyt... Jul 8 Macy 2
Catholics Faces Crisis Over Retired Nuns (Jul '06) Jul 6 QUITTNER on July 6 2014 15
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••