WE WON THE HOUSE!

[theweakerbrother]

Letting the wealthy have a tax break is a bad idea. Why??? We have a huge deficit. Either spending has to be cut enormously, or taxes have to be increased. Or both! Giving a tax break to poor people results in more spending - they are living paycheck to paycheck. Give them some money and they will spend it to stimulate the economy. Give a tax break to those making several hundred thousand dollars a year - give them a few more thousand dollars - they won't even notice. They won't spend it, and the economy won't benefit. They'll just stash it in their IRA's, while the economy suffers. This is why it's a good idea to keep the Bush tax cuts for the less fortunate, while making the rich pay more.

I'm tempted to give negative rep.

 

[rmabrey]

I'm tempted to give negative rep.

sadly im out till later tonight

 

[dom1104]

I like how he says "They'll just stash it in their IRAS"...

Like as if IRAs didnt have a 5K dollar per year contribution limit.. ooo big $$$ there.

Neg rep incoming.

 

[308jake]

Neg rep for politely stating his viewpoint? This is too much like 4th grade.

 

[boljr01]

Letting the wealthy have a tax break is a bad idea. Why??? We have a huge deficit. Either spending has to be cut enormously, or taxes have to be increased. Or both! Giving a tax break to poor people results in more spending - they are living paycheck to paycheck. Give them some money and they will spend it to stimulate the economy. Give a tax break to those making several hundred thousand dollars a year - give them a few more thousand dollars - they won't even notice. They won't spend it, and the economy won't benefit. They'll just stash it in their IRA's, while the economy suffers. This is why it's a good idea to keep the Bush tax cuts for the less fortunate, while making the rich pay more.

You're kidding, right?

 

[jbombelli]

Letting the wealthy have a tax break is a bad idea. Why??? We have a huge deficit. Either spending has to be cut enormously, or taxes have to be increased. Or both! Giving a tax break to poor people results in more spending - they are living paycheck to paycheck. Give them some money and they will spend it to stimulate the economy. Give a tax break to those making several hundred thousand dollars a year - give them a few more thousand dollars - they won't even notice. They won't spend it, and the economy won't benefit. They'll just stash it in their IRA's, while the economy suffers. This is why it's a good idea to keep the Bush tax cuts for the less fortunate, while making the rich pay more.

 

[right winger]

 

[Bill of Rights]

Letting the wealthy have a tax break is a bad idea. Why??? We have a huge deficit. Either spending has to be cut enormously, or taxes have to be increased. Or both! Giving a tax break to poor people results in more spending - they are living paycheck to paycheck. Give them some money and they will spend it to stimulate the economy. Give a tax break to those making several hundred thousand dollars a year - give them a few more thousand dollars - they won't even notice. They won't spend it, and the economy won't benefit. They'll just stash it in their IRA's, while the economy suffers. This is why it's a good idea to keep the Bush tax cuts for the less fortunate, while making the rich pay more.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course. Might I suggest that you read this link:
The Dinner Party or The Income Tax

You might find that your opinion changes.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Redemption]

I didn't vote for Coates.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

You're entitled to your opinion, of course. Might I suggest that you read this link:
The Dinner Party or The Income Tax

You might find that your opinion changes.

Blessings,
Bill

Thanks for that Bill. First time I've seen it and it explains a similar analogy I've used much much better.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Bill of Rights again.

Can someone hit him for me please?

 

[Kick]

Letting the wealthy have a tax break is a bad idea. Why??? We have a huge deficit. Either spending has to be cut enormously, or taxes have to be increased. Or both! Giving a tax break to poor people results in more spending - they are living paycheck to paycheck. Give them some money and they will spend it to stimulate the economy. Give a tax break to those making several hundred thousand dollars a year - give them a few more thousand dollars - they won't even notice. They won't spend it, and the economy won't benefit. They'll just stash it in their IRA's, while the economy suffers. This is why it's a good idea to keep the Bush tax cuts for the less fortunate, while making the rich pay more.

Son, if you give "poor people" the tax break won't do a whole lot. They will not go out put money back into the economy. They will start by getting their water, gas, and lights turned back on. Maybe catch up on their mortgage or rent. If you give them a big enough tax break, they may even be able to get their car back from the repo company.

Which, may result it my rates going down on all of the above. Hey maybe they will even learn to support their own families with some of their new found wealth and I will be able to keep more of my money instead of being punished for making a decent living for my family.

 

[dukeboy_318]

whats the melting point of plastic? if nancy pelosi doesnt keep a fan on her face it might melt off tonight

im glad to see that bee**tch go!!!

Agreed agreed agreed, I hated her long before she become the house speaker. If she's gone, obama loses his right arm, hopefully he loses both and reid will be gone, but that's wishfull thinking

 

[88GT]

I am not a solid republican, but if we can win to the right, maybe we can work on changing the party. It is a start.

More than that, it's the only real option.

I'll never begrudge a man for voting his conscience, but it is unsettling to listen to the "principled" crowd crow about how all Republicans are just as evil as the Dems when it simply isn't true.

IN-2 is getting another 2 years of a communist schmuck because the "principled" vote assumed the R next to her name meant she was no better than the D next to the ballot. I'm trying to figure out how being principled helped us there.

And frankly, I'm really starting to have my doubts about the legitimacy of a party that seems to be forever happy to remain on the fringe of election politics. The infrastructure is already in place, and America's two-party system isn't going anywhere any time soon. The Libertarians will NEVER replace the Republicans as the conservative choie, but they can infiltrate and displace those in the party who have forsaken the ideals of freedom the GOP once stood for. For Pete's sake, don't reinvent the effing wheel.

But then Walorski was just a RINO since all Republicans are just Dem-lites, right?

 

[Lex Concord]

More than that, it's the only real option.

I'll never begrudge a man for voting his conscience, but it is unsettling to listen to the "principled" crowd crow about how all Republicans are just as evil as the Dems when it simply isn't true.

IN-2 is getting another 2 years of a communist schmuck because the "principled" vote assumed the R next to her name meant she was no better than the D next to the ballot. I'm trying to figure out how being principled helped us there.

And frankly, I'm really starting to have my doubts about the legitimacy of a party that seems to be forever happy to remain on the fringe of election politics. The infrastructure is already in place, and America's two-party system isn't going anywhere any time soon. The Libertarians will NEVER replace the Republicans as the conservative choie, but they can infiltrate and displace those in the party who have forsaken the ideals of freedom the GOP once stood for. For Pete's sake, don't reinvent the effing wheel.

But then Walorski was just a RINO since all Republicans are just Dem-lites, right?

Wow. Libertarians do have an impact. Awesome.

I am of the opinion that losing a few races due to the perception that people voted L rather than R will have a far greater likelihood of pushing the Republican party to work to earn liberty bona fides than any "change from within" possibly could.

For those who think that change from within is possible, please explain the incentive for change if you have already given the only thing they want that you actually have the power to give or withhold....your vote? Answer...there is NONE.

Elections are like time-concentrated marketplaces wherein votes are the currency.

Competition forces retailers to re-evaluate strategies for attracting market share; if Republicans are smart, such election results would do the same.

I know many will point to the Tea Party as an example of effective "change from within", but I disagree. The Tea Party wasn't initially a movement to change the Republican party, but people who were pissed at government and didn't necessarily have a focus.

The Repubs were smart (scared) enough to see the opportunity, did their best to hijack the movement and give it a focus...getting R's back in office in 2010 and beyond. I don't hold much hope for true change in Washington or the Republican Party as a result of the Tea Party....though I would love to be proven wrong here. Only time will tell, but my guess is that the best thing that will happen after the new congress is sworn in is that Obama's agenda will be hamstrung and we will have two years of political gridlock.

Business or politics, human action is the same. Entities don't change without incentive. Sometimes carrots work, sometimes it takes a stick. The Republicans got all the carrots we could afford while they had total control (House, Senate, Presidency) for 6 years.

While the tax cuts have been nice, we got runaway spending in general, more socialized medicine, and a continually expanding surveillance state.

Democrats took over and we have had more runaway spending, socialized medicine, and still have a continually expanding surveillance state.

While I was tempted to vote for someone who "had a chance of winning", I just had to "give a little whistle" while in the booth and my conscience led the way

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOZzNOkcEgM"]YouTube - Pinocchio and Jiminy Cricket - Always Let Your Conscience Be Your Guide![/ame]

Even though I don't live in IN-2 (translation, my votes meant absolutely nothing either way), I would have voted in nearly identical fashion, and would be looking forward to a good night's sleep.

 

[Disposable Heart]

You're entitled to your opinion, of course. Might I suggest that you read this link:
The Dinner Party or The Income Tax

You might find that your opinion changes.

Blessings,
Bill

Once again, Bill, you are a class act, compared to the rest of some on this board. Someone disagrees with you, they jump all over them, plug their ears and yell over them, attacking integrity and intelligence while showing theirs. Bill, you use logic, grace and intellect in showing an opposing view.

As for the house, WOOT! In actuality, the two races I was watching had less than favorable outcomes (Angle and O'Donnell) with the winners, but anything is better than those two.

Can't get 'em in the Senate, but hey, 1 out of 3 ain't bad, particularly when it's a good powerful one. I hope that there is SOME compromise, might help out big in 2012 for the Pres elections.

 

[bigus_D]

WAIT? WE WON? OMG THE LIBERTARIANS WON THE HOUSE!

 

[steveh_131]

Once again, Bill, you are a class act, compared to the rest of some on this board. Someone disagrees with you, they jump all over them, plug their ears and yell over them, attacking integrity and intelligence while showing theirs. Bill, you use logic, grace and intellect in showing an opposing view.

why don't you two get a room.

 

[dom1104]

why don't you two get a room.

AAHHAHAHAHAHA!

Repped.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Once again, Bill, you are a class act, compared to the rest of some on this board. Someone disagrees with you, they jump all over them, plug their ears and yell over them, attacking integrity and intelligence while showing theirs. Bill, you use logic, grace and intellect in showing an opposing view.

As for the house, WOOT! In actuality, the two races I was watching had less than favorable outcomes (Angle and O'Donnell) with the winners, but anything is better than those two.

Can't get 'em in the Senate, but hey, 1 out of 3 ain't bad, particularly when it's a good powerful one. I hope that there is SOME compromise, might help out big in 2012 for the Pres elections.

Thank you, DH. It's not about showing people they're wrong, and attacking someone's character solely because you disagree with his position is pointless; it's not going to change anyone's mind. If you can persuade someone to think about what they're saying or present to them information they didn't already have, however, you don't have to show them where (you think) they're wrong, the information will often do that job for you.

A friend of mine likes to quote, "Facts are stubborn things." (originally, "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams)
Another friend (Auntie Bellum on here) has as part of her sig line, "The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it. ~ Flannery O'Connor"

why don't you two get a room.

If the man wants to offer a compliment, I appreciate it. More, though, if I can set a good example, maybe I won't have to issue warnings, infractions, and bans because we actually have good, productive discussions instead of namecalling and internet slap-fighting.

For me, that's win-win.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[dom1104]

Just to even this out, I am going to attack Bill of Rights charecter right now.

"I ....think you are way too smart which means you must have went to college which means your daddy paid for it you silver spooned rich boy you! I think... You have WAY too much reputation which means you have rep which stands for republican which obviously means you are in the pocket of big business and are just as bad as democrats at spending money you stinking liberal, and what the heck is "Cogito Ergo Porto" anyhow some sort of sekret language? Some sort of college fraternity thing? OMG SKULL AND BONES! I also hate your sense of elitism since you have figured out how to get a picture in your sigline and I cant get more than freaking 10 words in there "Only 1 line per signature, your text must be wrapped etc,etc,etc," IT ISNT WRAPPED GOSH DARNIT TO ...

YEAH... and your hair is fluffy.

You bearded smiling bacon-lover, you make me sick.