pBills

A 10% difference in tax rate is a big deal.

Come on.... no more earmarks means no more earmarks right? Reduce spending!!

I actually posted the entire article.

Tea Party Caucus Members Were For Earmarks Before They Were Against Them Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/12/02/tea-party-caucus-members-were-for-earmarks-before-they-were-against-them/#ixzz16z298krR Combing through records compiled by the spending watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste, Hotline's Reid Wilson writes that members of the 52-person Congressional Tea Party Caucus requested more than $1 billion in earmarks during the 2010 fiscal year. From Wilson's piece: [...]the 52 members of the caucus, which pledges to cut spending and reduce the size of government, requested a total of 764 earmarks valued at $1,049,783,150 during Fiscal Year 2010, the last year for which records are available. "It's disturbing to see the Tea Party Caucus requested that much in earmarks. This is their time to put up or shut up, to be blunt," said David Williams, vice president for policy at Citizens Against Government Waste. "There's going to be a huge backlash if they continue to request earmarks." In founding the caucus in July, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) said she was giving voice to Americans who were sick of government over-spending. Wilson notes that 14 caucus members refrained from requesting earmarks in FY 2010, including Bachmann, and all have pledged to abide by the Republican earmark moratorium going forward. But this is one more example of how rhetoric about the importance of fiscal austerity often doesn't align with reality. This week Bachmann has denounced Congress' $1.2 billion settlement with black farmers as "scamming the federal taxpayers." As the Minneapolis Star-Tribune points out, her family farm has received more than $250,000 in federal farm subsidies over the past decade. Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/12/02/tea-party-caucus-members-were-for-earmarks-before-they-were-against-them/#ixzz16z2nklxj Do we really believe that they will change Washington? Cut spending, etc., etc.

And the jobs created over the next two years.

Having a solid DE compliments defensive play against the run and pass. Ok, John Clayton

Having no true passing rushing DE is part of that reason. Hopefully they will draft DE with the first pick. Yeah, let's not give the guy any credit.

Oh my god, pull that partisan stick out of your ass. Not everything is Obama's fault. So sick of that nonsense. You are F' ing stupid.

Great job Whitner... for all of the crap you receive it's nice to hear this: Whitner, tied for fourth in the league with a team-leading 104 tackles (most among all NFL defensive backs), credited the change from former defensive coordinator Perry Fewell’s Tampa 2 system to current coordinator George Edwards’ 3-4.

You can say it all you want. I understand that... AGAIN, keep the rate the same as it is now for corporations who ship jobs overseas. Those who create jobs here... they can receive lower rates. So then the revenues will increase due to companies wanting that lower rate and not shipping jobs overseas, hence more jobs created. Win / Win.

Totally agree. However that also depends on businesses wanting to hire right?

Very true, after all they lost their unemployment benefits. If they can blame him for everything, they can give him credit for things as well. Shouldn't be one sided... oh wait people on this board will keep things one sided.

Why not give incentive to companies who pride themselves on hiring within this great country? Is a company has outsourced it's jobs to India, China, etc... keep them at the rate they are at now. People talk about Americans that are on unemployment and giving them incentives, why not do the same to corporations. On to the high earners, I still say keep them at the level they are at now. No reason to lower their rates as well.

My infantile look on corporations? Really? I have been saying offer tax breaks for those who create jobs within the US. Don't reward those who ship jobs overseas. Is that hard to understand? And if the corporations are looking to sit back... wait till they feel as though the economy is right for them then they shouldn't receive breaks, stimulus packages, nothing. OR we could follow your philosophy let give them more and more and hope they will do something... cause god forbid we don't bend over to them they may leave us. $%#$@& dumb. Keep them right where they are now.

We had to go to this dumbass automated system... push a button if you looked for a job. I wonder where the issue lies... making it so easy for people who want to live off of unemployment. They need to remove that system and make people prove that they are looking. Those who can't, won't receive anything. Of course that means bigger government... a big no no for people.

And if they don't? You're basically saying F them. Do you also see that for one opening a company may receive hundreds of resumes? Hundreds for ONE open position. Do you also see that the average opening even in the resume acceptance stage can take upwards of 14-19 weeks to fill? No A-hole. I completely understand that it is they earned their money. So how does that justify giving them even lower rates? Will they invest that money? My stance on corporations will not change.

So they are suggesting in the high earners to possibly go from 35% to somewhere in between 23% and 28%. Nice break!!! I guess they earned that break? Hell I would be happy with their rates staying at 35%. There is no reason what-so-ever for their rates to possibly go down 10%. Now you are talking about those people who receive deductions. Yeah, let's complain about those people who may be earning $30k per year. They don't deserve anything right? Protect and give more breaks to those pulling in a butt load of money vs. not doing as much for those who live paycheck to paycheck.

So the individual high earner is guaranteed to invest their earnings? Are they definitely going invest in American companies? I have no issue with giving companies who keep jobs in the US breaks. Companies who outsource... no.

I love this mentality. F the person who lost their job in possibly the worst economy since the Great Depression. They'll find something soon enough... they'll just have to fight it out with millions of other people looking for work. Merry F'ing Christmas.

No one is hoarding to screw over the President. They may be hoarding until they feel better about the market though. Can you justify giving all of those tax breaks, especially if we're trying to reduce the deficit? I have stated for companies that keep jobs in the US give them the tax breaks, those who cut jobs here and ship them overseas... receive nothing. Their rate can go up to the scheduled 39.6%. Now, can you justify the high earners receiving such tax breaks?

Deficit reduction thread that gives corporations and high earners more breaks? How does that make sense?

Just think that it's a shame that so many people are just cut off. No help what-so-ever.

I would go along with a lot of it. However, I do not like lowering tax rates for corporations and high earning individuals. For the corporation side, companies who do not ship job overseas should be able to receive those lower tax rates. Others should receive no break what-so-ever. How come no one is doing anything about extending unemployment benefits? That is a shame.

So what does everyone think of the proposed plan? Thoughts about Social Security, cutting taxes for Corporations and Individuals, Spending and Job Cuts?

What are you unsure about?