Goodbye Nancy

[Big Train]

It's time for them to go (Pelosi/Reid) if they are even remotely considering a VAT tax..

Pelosi says new tax is 'on the table' - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/61783-pelosi-says-new-tax-is-on-the-table)

Pelosi says new tax is 'on the table'
By Michael O'Brien - 10/06/09 10:59 AM ET
A new value-added tax (VAT) is "on the table" to help the U.S. address its fiscal liabilities, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Monday night.

Pelosi, appearing on PBS's "The Charlie Rose Show" asserted that "it's fair to look at" the VAT as part of an overhaul of the nation's tax code.

"I would say, Put everything on the table and subject it to the scrutiny that it deserves," Pelosi told Rose when asked if the VAT has any appeal to her.

The VAT is a tax on manufacturers at each stage of production on the amount of value an additional producer adds to a product.

Pelosi argued that the VAT would level the playing field between U.S. and foreign manufacturers, the latter of which do not have pension and healthcare costs included in the price of their goods because their governments provide those services, financed by similar taxes.

"They get a tax off of that and they use that money to pay the healthcare for their own workers," Pelosi said, using the example of auto manufacturers. "So their cars coming into our country don't have a healthcare component cost.

"Somewhere along the way, a value-added tax plays into this. Of course, we want to take down the healthcare cost, that's one part of it," the Speaker added. "But in the scheme of things, I think it's fair look at a value- added tax as well."

Pelosi said that any new taxes would come after the Congress finishes the healthcare debate consuming most lawmakers' time, and that it may come as part of a larger overhaul to the tax code.

The Speaker also emphasized that any reworking of the tax code would not result in an increase in taxes on middle-class Americans.

[ELVIS]

TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!!!!!!!!!!

Wake up you motherfuckers!!!


I'm on your side!


:elvis:

[ELVIS]

"Level the playing field between U.S. and foreign manufacturers" ?????

HOW IS THAT AMERICAN ??????


Jesus Christ, please wake up!!!

[FORD]

The proper way to increase revenue is this....

1) Close all the loopholes.

2) Roll back all tax cuts for the rich to Eisenhower era levels.

3) Restore the estate tax.

Do these three things and there will be no need to ever discuss any "new" taxes or tax increases.

[ELVIS]

Dude, the rich pay nearly ALL of the taxes...

[Jesus Christ]

Jesus Christ, please wake up!!!

I'm wide awake, Gregory. What is with thy shouting? :confused12:

[Big Train]

It's time for them to go (Pelosi/Reid) if they are even remotely considering a VAT tax..

Pelosi says new tax is 'on the table' - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/61783-pelosi-says-new-tax-is-on-the-table)

Pelosi says new tax is 'on the table'
By Michael O'Brien - 10/06/09 10:59 AM ET

Pelosi argued that the VAT would level the playing field between U.S. and foreign manufacturers, the latter of which do not have pension and healthcare costs included in the price of their goods because their governments provide those services, financed by similar taxes.

"They get a tax off of that and they use that money to pay the healthcare for their own workers," Pelosi said, using the example of auto manufacturers. "So their cars coming into our country don't have a healthcare component cost.

"Somewhere along the way, a value-added tax plays into this. Of course, we want to take down the healthcare cost, that's one part of it," the Speaker added. "But in the scheme of things, I think it's fair look at a value- added tax as well."

The Speaker also emphasized that any reworking of the tax code would not result in an increase in taxes on middle-class Americans.

Gotta get that public option at all costs...Barry's political career is most important.

I love her last statement. It would NOT result as an increase (directly) in taxes on Middle Class Americans. Just on everything they buy, taxing the shit outta them indirectly.

Nancy...bye bye.

[Jesus Christ]

Render unto Caesar, etc.....

[ELVIS]

FORD, shut the hell up!

[Fuct Jup]

What Pelosi fails to realize is you cannot tax businesses, because they roll the additional expense back to the consumer. She either thinks we are stupid or is the biggest moron ever to be Speaker of the House.

[Satan]

What Pelosi fails to realize is you cannot tax businesses, because they roll the additional expense back to the consumer. She either thinks we are stupid or is the biggest moron ever to be Speaker of the House.

No, that title was already claimed.........

http://myuglyboss.com/use/dennis_hastert.JPG

....by Fat Bastert.

[Nickdfresh]

TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!!!!!!!!!!

Wake up you motherfuckers!!!


I'm on your side!


:elvis:

Um, it's representatives proposing the taxes, brainiac...

[Nickdfresh]

Gotta get that public option at all costs...Barry's political career is most important.

I love her last statement. It would NOT result as an increase (directly) in taxes on Middle Class Americans. Just on everything they buy, taxing the shit outta them indirectly.

Nancy...bye bye.


Pelosi? LOL! Where is your god now, BT?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_9ZzZquaXrR8/SnZFhJa4PYI/AAAAAAAAEec/ZsrCTkracsQ/s640/Greenspan.jpg
Greenspan favors new taxes to bring down debt
By Michael O'Brien - 10/02/09 10:26 AM ET

Higher taxes of some sort are needed to bring down the U.S. budget deficit and national debt, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said Friday.

Greenspan asserted that lawmakers should consider radical changes to tax and spending regimes in the country in order to bring an expanding national debt under control.

"The budget is so badly out of balanced that we've got to do something, and I think it's got to be both on the spending time and the taxing side," Greenspan said at The Atlantic magazine's "First Draft of History" event this morning.

The former Fed chairman has long been a critic of imbalanced budgets, having emphasized the need for more financially sound government balance sheets.

He emphasized the need for new taxes to fund the deficit, but said he personally favored a "value added tax," which assesses an adjustable tax on different stages of production of a good.

"It's the least worst way to come at this from the revenue side," Greenspan explained, adding: "I hope that if we do put it on, we take the whole income tax structure and bring it down slightly."

Greenspan predicted that addressing the debt would determine a good deal of economic and political issues in the years to come.

TheHill.com (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/61337-greenspan-favors-new-taxes-to-bring-down-debt)

[Jesus Christ]

Dude, the rich pay nearly ALL of the taxes...

There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:

And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,

And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

And in Hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:

For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

[Big Train]

Pelosi? LOL! Where is your god now, BT?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_9ZzZquaXrR8/SnZFhJa4PYI/AAAAAAAAEec/ZsrCTkracsQ/s640/Greenspan.jpg
Greenspan favors new taxes to bring down debt
By Michael O'Brien - 10/02/09 10:26 AM ET

Higher taxes of some sort are needed to bring down the U.S. budget deficit and national debt, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said Friday.

Greenspan asserted that lawmakers should consider radical changes to tax and spending regimes in the country in order to bring an expanding national debt under control.


"The budget is so badly out of balanced that we've got to do something, and I think it's got to be both on the spending time and the taxing side," Greenspan said at The Atlantic magazine's "First Draft of History" event this morning.

The former Fed chairman has long been a critic of imbalanced budgets, having emphasized the need for more financially sound government balance sheets.

He emphasized the need for new taxes to fund the deficit, but said he personally favored a "value added tax," which assesses an adjustable tax on different stages of production of a good.

"It's the least worst way to come at this from the revenue side," Greenspan explained, adding: "I hope that if we do put it on, we take the whole income tax structure and bring it down slightly."

Greenspan predicted that addressing the debt would determine a good deal of economic and political issues in the years to come.

TheHill.com (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/61337-greenspan-favors-new-taxes-to-bring-down-debt)

Where did I sign up for " Greenspan is my God"? And you tell me I imply things YOU never said.

I'm against a VAT no matter who is advocating it, period. Always have, always will.

[Nickdfresh]

What Pelosi fails to realize is you cannot tax businesses, because they roll the additional expense back to the consumer. She either thinks we are stupid or is the biggest moron ever to be Speaker of the House.


Oh, but what about the "market?" Won't market forces fix everything by forcing competition and minimal expense to the consumer?

Maybe you're a moron, because you droningly support a system that lets most corporations NOT PAY income taxes and increases the tax burden on the states and individuals...

[Nickdfresh]

Dude, the rich pay nearly ALL of the taxes...

The top 2% own over 50% of the wealth! I would fucking hope so!

[Nickdfresh]

BTW, which one of you dopes has a alternative? I do. How about closing tax loopholes and preventing absurd tax subsidies to businesses? You know, the ones that pay almost no income tax?

[Nickdfresh]

Where did I sign up for " Greenspan is my God"? And you tell me I imply things YOU never said.

How does it feel?


I'm against a VAT no matter who is advocating it, period. Always have, always will.

But why, specifically?

[Big Train]

Fine, cuz I'm not a pussy about it and I'll answer your questions regardless. Plus, as you never mentioned in the other thread, I prefaced my questions that you got all bent about (go look it up) with the phrase "Is it", as something I'm asking, not something I'm claiming you said. But make your own distinctions as you wish.

VAT as a concept I disagree with because the finished product is what should be taxed, not the steps in the process. It adds unnecessary costs to goods. That in itself makes the nation's goods even less competitive with foreign made goods, whose only added tax is the import tariff.

[Big Train]

BTW, which one of you dopes has a alternative? I do. How about closing tax loopholes and preventing absurd tax subsidies to businesses? You know, the ones that pay almost no income tax?

Simple, even for us dopes.

1. Close some loopholes.
2. Stop any and all payment/support to non-citizens (and stop collecting taxes from them, if they are legal non-residents. Incentive).
3. Cut services across the board.
4. Cut payroll, capital gains and certain state taxes to small and mid cap companies, which will spur investment in them (if for nothing else, the advantageous tax setup).

[ELVIS]

Um, it's representatives proposing the taxes, brainiac...

You don't get it, do you ??

Are these representatives representing your idea of what to do with your tax dollars, because they are far off as far as i'm concerned...

[Nickdfresh]

Fine, cuz I'm not a pussy about it and I'll answer your questions regardless.

That would be a first...

That's big of you. But my "question" is merely asking you to clarify yourself. I'm not projecting any bullshit into your supposed belief system...


Plus, as you never mentioned in the other thread, I prefaced my questions that you got all bent about (go look it up) with the phrase "Is it", as something I'm asking, not something I'm claiming you said. But make your own distinctions as you wish.

Actually, you were asking questions that had nothing to do with the actual debate, not any statements I made. Sort of like, "Isn't murder bad? Then why do you want to kill old people by not supporting health care reform?" "Why do you hate America?"

It's the typical bullshit invective in the political debate...


VAT as a concept I disagree with because the finished product is what should be taxed, not the steps in the process. It adds unnecessary costs to goods. That in itself makes the nation's goods even less competitive with foreign made goods, whose only added tax is the import tariff.

But why would this make US products less competitive when much of it will be focused on foreign imports? Secondly, what items produced will really effect the average consumer? Other than cars, there's really not all that much produced here anymore in regards to consumer goods...

[Nickdfresh]

Simple, even for us dopes.

1. Close some loopholes.

Why not all?


2. Stop any and all payment/support to non-citizens (and stop collecting taxes from them, if they are legal non-residents. Incentive).

So you want to incentivize illegal immigration by not taxing them?


3. Cut services across the board.

Like what? Defense? That's the most expensive one by far. It costs a lot of money to simply have cheap gas...


4. Cut payroll, capital gains and certain state taxes to small and mid cap companies, which will spur investment in them (if for nothing else, the advantageous tax setup).

Um, we've cut taxes, and I think there is really no solid evidence that massive tax cuts have much real bearing on the economy as tax revenues fall and infrastructure, education, and a whole host of things suffer and actually can lead to a negative effect on the economy. What is the point of cutting taxes everywhere if you can't educated the stupid high school kids to run your cash registers? Why cut unemployment benefits and even welfare when that money actually stimulates the economy by providing the onus of consumer spending?

If cutting taxes were the answer, then why did the economy tank on Bush's watch despite massive tax breaks?

[Fuct Jup]

Oh, but what about the "market?" Won't market forces fix everything by forcing competition and minimal expense to the consumer?

Maybe you're a moron, because you droningly support a system that lets most corporations NOT PAY income taxes and increases the tax burden on the states and individuals...

Introducing a value added tax in a recession is the worst thing this administration could do, but its Obama's funeral.

If you want to buy something nice you are going to pay twice as much for it if a VAT is added. Again, you can't tax businesses technically, because the additional cost is pushed back on the consumer. Even the middle class...

[Big Train]

That would be a first...

That's big of you. But my "question" is merely asking you to clarify yourself. I'm not projecting any bullshit into your supposed belief system...

OK, seriously, do I have to plea to a lesser charge in the court of "how can Nick be kind of right?" , now that we have established that I never spoke for you, the previous charge?

Actually, you were asking questions that had nothing to do with the actual debate, not any statements I made. Sort of like, "Isn't murder bad? Then why do you want to kill old people by not supporting health care reform?" "Why do you hate America?"

It's the typical bullshit invective in the political debate...

Please. I asked you questions directly relating to the topic. I was merely trying to establish why you felt this way about CEO's in general, which you never have a single positive thing to say. I said nothing like the dramatic examples you just tossed out there.

But why would this make US products less competitive when much of it will be focused on foreign imports? Secondly, what items produced will really effect the average consumer? Other than cars, there's really not all that much produced here anymore in regards to consumer goods...

Well, with our labor costs being what they are, on top of VAT costs, the foreign goods would still be priced cheaper all in, unless we were to install and very stiff tariff and trigger a trade war. Which I more or less already said in my previous post (minus the labor bit, which I assumed you could come up with on your own. I like to give you credit).

What is left being produced here in the way of consumer goods would take yet another hit and produce even further waste of the manufacturing base.

[Big Train]

Why not all?

Some loopholes actually encourage investment, not just scamming. There has to be incentive. What liberals disagree with are called loopholes, what they do are called "credits".

So you want to incentivize illegal immigration by not taxing them?

Hastily written at lunch. My apologies Dean. I want all support/aid stopped to illegal aliens, but I want taxes not collected on LEGAL temp residents, as an incentive. Combined with a shitload of actual enforcement on both. Your illegal one day, taxes and deportation coming your way.

Like what? Defense? That's the most expensive one by far. It costs a lot of money to simply have cheap gas...

Defense needs to be pared back a bit and accountability on cost overruns, much, much tighter with stiffer penalties. Social programs need serious cuts as well, across the board. If we can't afford it, we can't afford it, bleeding hearts or not.

Um, we've cut taxes, and I think there is really no solid evidence that massive tax cuts have much real bearing on the economy as tax revenues fall and infrastructure, education, and a whole host of things suffer and actually can lead to a negative effect on the economy. What is the point of cutting taxes everywhere if you can't educated the stupid high school kids to run your cash registers? Why cut unemployment benefits and even welfare when that money actually stimulates the economy by providing the onus of consumer spending?

Oh man, your "no evidence" comment...no comment. What I'm suggesting is that we cut taxes on small to mid cap businesses specifically, where the majority of job growth is going to come from in a rebound situation. Giving them room to breathe (and an attractive tax setup to gain investment much more easily) is a way to make things grow much faster and create jobs.

If cutting taxes were the answer, then why did the economy tank on Bush's watch despite massive tax breaks?

OK, I'll pretend your not playing both sides of the fence on this. The tax cuts (which did work) were outweighed by the massive spending on the federal and state levels, as well as the housing crisis (which you have noted many, many times in other threads, so clearly you are aware of the correct response).