ultimately my beef with the administration on this issue is that when they're talking up their help for the non-rich, they start to own the tax cuts ... but then when we talk about the economic effects of those tax cuts, they're always Bush-installed. but i'm negative like that.FuriousOne;5155439 said:
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
excuse me, but COLORADO JUST LEGALIZED WEED COLORADO JUST LEGALIZED WEED COLORADO JUST LEGALIZED WEE
kingblaze84
New member
janklow;5158288 said:ultimately my beef with the administration on this issue is that when they're talking up their help for the non-rich, they start to own the tax cuts ... but then when we talk about the economic effects of those tax cuts, they're always Bush-installed. but i'm negative like that.FuriousOne;5155439 said:Yes, i have to remember to say 'Tax cuts for the Rich'.. But i do recall Obama increasing tax cuts for Middle class with the stimulus, so he already claimed those as his own.
Exactly, we have to be honest as a country and say we can no longer afford these tax cuts.
janklow;5158288 said:ultimately my beef with the administration on this issue is that when they're talking up their help for the non-rich, they start to own the tax cuts ... but then when we talk about the economic effects of those tax cuts, they're always Bush-installed. but i'm negative like that.FuriousOne;5155439 said:Yes, i have to remember to say 'Tax cuts for the Rich'.. But i do recall Obama increasing tax cuts for Middle class with the stimulus, so he already claimed those as his own.
Obama has actually said recently that he is willing to cut it all if a deal can't be reached to increase them on people making over a certain amount. But still technically, he did extend taxes for the middle class with his very own tax plan aside from bush's efforts that was created during the stimulus program. He obviously doesn't consider tax cuts for the Middle Class as a negative effect on the economy but rather the tax cuts that aided the Rich far more then anyone else with no trickle down benefit. Still they were created during the Bush era and that is the portion he wants gone.
@kingblaze84, weren't you talking about bailing out Americans? Are you now saying taxes should be increased for everyone?
You guys do no that they tax cuts have differing affects in different income levels right?
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/06/14/the-high-cost-to-the-middle-class-of-low-taxes-on-the-rich/
Last edited:
kingblaze84
New member
FuriousOne;5158696 said:janklow;5158288 said:ultimately my beef with the administration on this issue is that when they're talking up their help for the non-rich, they start to own the tax cuts ... but then when we talk about the economic effects of those tax cuts, they're always Bush-installed. but i'm negative like that.FuriousOne;5155439 said:Yes, i have to remember to say 'Tax cuts for the Rich'.. But i do recall Obama increasing tax cuts for Middle class with the stimulus, so he already claimed those as his own.
Obama has actually said recently that he is willing to cut it all if a deal can't be reached to increase them on people making over a certain amount. But still technically, he did extend taxes for the middle class with his very own tax plan aside from bush's efforts that was created during the stimulus program. He obviously doesn't consider tax cuts for the Middle Class as a negative effect on the economy but rather the tax cuts that aided the Rich far more then anyone else with no trickle down benefit. Still they were created during the Bush era and that is the portion he wants gone.
@kingblaze84, weren't you talking about bailing out Americans? Are you now saying taxes should be increased for everyone?
You guys do no that they tax cuts have differing affects in different income levels right?
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/06/14/the-high-cost-to-the-middle-class-of-low-taxes-on-the-rich/
I do want bailouts for Americans, but the tax cuts are too expensive. If we're going to be serious about paying down the deficit, we have to end the constant tax cuts. I can forgive the tax cuts staying for the middle class, but realistically speaking, if we're going to pay down the debt, tax cuts for everyone must end. Otherwise, say hello to more inflation. If this is okay with you, please say so.
This is why I am so adamant against the expensive ass war in Afghanistan, we can save some of that money to help out the working and middle class. If the feds stop being dickheads on marijuana, states would see more growth from the marijuana industry and create more jobs, and then more tax revenues. I understand Obama may just not like marijuana, but the time to be narrow minded in the absence of new ideas to improve the economy is over.
Last edited:
kingblaze84;5159228 said:FuriousOne;5158696 said:janklow;5158288 said:ultimately my beef with the administration on this issue is that when they're talking up their help for the non-rich, they start to own the tax cuts ... but then when we talk about the economic effects of those tax cuts, they're always Bush-installed. but i'm negative like that.FuriousOne;5155439 said:Yes, i have to remember to say 'Tax cuts for the Rich'.. But i do recall Obama increasing tax cuts for Middle class with the stimulus, so he already claimed those as his own.
Obama has actually said recently that he is willing to cut it all if a deal can't be reached to increase them on people making over a certain amount. But still technically, he did extend taxes for the middle class with his very own tax plan aside from bush's efforts that was created during the stimulus program. He obviously doesn't consider tax cuts for the Middle Class as a negative effect on the economy but rather the tax cuts that aided the Rich far more then anyone else with no trickle down benefit. Still they were created during the Bush era and that is the portion he wants gone.
@kingblaze84, weren't you talking about bailing out Americans? Are you now saying taxes should be increased for everyone?
You guys do no that they tax cuts have differing affects in different income levels right?
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/06/14/the-high-cost-to-the-middle-class-of-low-taxes-on-the-rich/
I do want bailouts for Americans, but the tax cuts are too expensive. If we're going to be serious about paying down the deficit, we have to end the constant tax cuts. I can forgive the tax cuts staying for the middle class, but realistically speaking, if we're going to pay down the debt, tax cuts for everyone must end. Otherwise, say hello to more inflation. If this is okay with you, please say so.
This is why I am so adamant against the expensive ass war in Afghanistan, we can save some of that money to help out the working and middle class. If the feds stop being dickheads on marijuana, states would see more growth from the marijuana industry and create more jobs, and then more tax revenues. I understand Obama may just not like marijuana, but the time to be narrow minded in the absence of new ideas to improve the economy is over.
That is one of the options that he offered. More taxes for rich or more taxes for everyone. But at a time where the middle class is suffering the most, increasing their taxes will only hurt consumer spending even further which in turn will threaten the economy far more. Jobs don't come out of thin air. You have invest to create industries for jobs. The Rich don't need more breaks and they got far more direct benefit from tax breaks then the middle class did. I can't argue your idea about taxing weed. I think alcohol is far more dangerous but that doesn't mean people can't enjoy it properly. . Still, he hasn't said anything yet so we'll have to see what goes down.
kingblaze84
New member
Interesting words from Cornel West on Obama......
http://mto.mediatakeout.com/external/59582
Cornel West has made it clear that he feels that President Obama should be more proactive in tackling issues like poverty and the prison-industrial complex. Some African Americans see the professor's views as divisive, while others say he's speaking truth to power. Recently, in an interview with Democracy Now, West and Tavis Smiley were asked about the president's priorities, and while Smiley said Americans must encourage the POTUS to be the best he can be, West was much more critical, writes the Atlanta Daily World.
"I think that it's morally obscene and spiritually profane to spend $6 billion on an election, $2 billion on a presidential election, and not have any serious discussion -- poverty, trade unions being pushed against the wall dealing with stagnating and declining wages when profits are still up and the 1 percent are doing very well, no talk about drones dropping bombs on innocent people. So we end up with such a narrow, truncated political discourse, as the major problems -- ecological catastrophe, climate change, global warming. So it's very sad. I mean, I'm glad there was not a right-wing takeover, but we end up with a Republican, a Rockefeller Republican in blackface, with Barack Obama, so that our struggle with regard to poverty intensifies" ...
Responding to Dyson's statement that President Obama was "progressive," both Smiley and West said that President Obama is not, because to be progressive means taking risks, something that the president has not done.
"In the president's forward motion in the second term to establish a legacy -- and I don't think that being president ought to be about a legacy; it ought to be about advancing the best for the American people. But in this conversation about his legacy, I want to see what risk he's going to take. Is he going to put himself on the line for poor people? Is he going have an honest conversation about drones? As Doc said earlier, you know, is he ever going to say the word prison -- the phrase, "prison-industrial complex"? Reagan wouldn't say "AIDS." Bush wouldn't say "climate change." Will Obama say "prison-industrial complex"? I mean, I want to know where the risk is that equates to being the most progressive president ever. That's the -- I don't get that."
http://mto.mediatakeout.com/external/59582
Cornel West has made it clear that he feels that President Obama should be more proactive in tackling issues like poverty and the prison-industrial complex. Some African Americans see the professor's views as divisive, while others say he's speaking truth to power. Recently, in an interview with Democracy Now, West and Tavis Smiley were asked about the president's priorities, and while Smiley said Americans must encourage the POTUS to be the best he can be, West was much more critical, writes the Atlanta Daily World.
"I think that it's morally obscene and spiritually profane to spend $6 billion on an election, $2 billion on a presidential election, and not have any serious discussion -- poverty, trade unions being pushed against the wall dealing with stagnating and declining wages when profits are still up and the 1 percent are doing very well, no talk about drones dropping bombs on innocent people. So we end up with such a narrow, truncated political discourse, as the major problems -- ecological catastrophe, climate change, global warming. So it's very sad. I mean, I'm glad there was not a right-wing takeover, but we end up with a Republican, a Rockefeller Republican in blackface, with Barack Obama, so that our struggle with regard to poverty intensifies" ...
Responding to Dyson's statement that President Obama was "progressive," both Smiley and West said that President Obama is not, because to be progressive means taking risks, something that the president has not done.
"In the president's forward motion in the second term to establish a legacy -- and I don't think that being president ought to be about a legacy; it ought to be about advancing the best for the American people. But in this conversation about his legacy, I want to see what risk he's going to take. Is he going to put himself on the line for poor people? Is he going have an honest conversation about drones? As Doc said earlier, you know, is he ever going to say the word prison -- the phrase, "prison-industrial complex"? Reagan wouldn't say "AIDS." Bush wouldn't say "climate change." Will Obama say "prison-industrial complex"? I mean, I want to know where the risk is that equates to being the most progressive president ever. That's the -- I don't get that."
kingblaze84
New member
FuriousOne;5159262 said:kingblaze84;5159228 said:FuriousOne;5158696 said:janklow;5158288 said:ultimately my beef with the administration on this issue is that when they're talking up their help for the non-rich, they start to own the tax cuts ... but then when we talk about the economic effects of those tax cuts, they're always Bush-installed. but i'm negative like that.FuriousOne;5155439 said:Yes, i have to remember to say 'Tax cuts for the Rich'.. But i do recall Obama increasing tax cuts for Middle class with the stimulus, so he already claimed those as his own.
Obama has actually said recently that he is willing to cut it all if a deal can't be reached to increase them on people making over a certain amount. But still technically, he did extend taxes for the middle class with his very own tax plan aside from bush's efforts that was created during the stimulus program. He obviously doesn't consider tax cuts for the Middle Class as a negative effect on the economy but rather the tax cuts that aided the Rich far more then anyone else with no trickle down benefit. Still they were created during the Bush era and that is the portion he wants gone.
@kingblaze84, weren't you talking about bailing out Americans? Are you now saying taxes should be increased for everyone?
You guys do no that they tax cuts have differing affects in different income levels right?
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/06/14/the-high-cost-to-the-middle-class-of-low-taxes-on-the-rich/
I do want bailouts for Americans, but the tax cuts are too expensive. If we're going to be serious about paying down the deficit, we have to end the constant tax cuts. I can forgive the tax cuts staying for the middle class, but realistically speaking, if we're going to pay down the debt, tax cuts for everyone must end. Otherwise, say hello to more inflation. If this is okay with you, please say so.
This is why I am so adamant against the expensive ass war in Afghanistan, we can save some of that money to help out the working and middle class. If the feds stop being dickheads on marijuana, states would see more growth from the marijuana industry and create more jobs, and then more tax revenues. I understand Obama may just not like marijuana, but the time to be narrow minded in the absence of new ideas to improve the economy is over.
That is one of the options that he offered. More taxes for rich or more taxes for everyone. But at a time where the middle class is suffering the most, increasing their taxes will only hurt consumer spending even further which in turn will threaten the economy far more. Jobs don't come out of thin air. You have invest to create industries for jobs. The Rich don't need more breaks and they got far more direct benefit from tax breaks then the middle class did. I can't argue your idea about taxing weed. I think alcohol is far more dangerous but that doesn't mean people can't enjoy it properly. . Still, he hasn't said anything yet so we'll have to see what goes down.
I can understand why a politician like Obama wouldn't want to raise taxes on the middle class and working class now, but he has to be tough on raising taxes on the rich now, no more being a coward as I'm used to him being. In regards to weed, we shall see how much the pharmaceutical industry has bought him off. Personally, I think Obama will continue to George W Bush his way to the end of his 2nd term. The budget cuts that will take place in January will be fascinating......
Last edited:
Showtyme LaCour
New member
good.
okay, but let me state this differently.FuriousOne;5158696 said:But still technically, he did extend taxes for the middle class with his very own tax plan aside from bush's efforts that was created during the stimulus program. He obviously doesn't consider tax cuts for the Middle Class as a negative effect on the economy but rather the tax cuts that aided the Rich far more then anyone else with no trickle down benefit.
when we talk about the "Bush tax cuts," i presume we're talking about the entire package of cuts Bush brought to the table, since as a whole, they're stated to have negatively impacted the US budget. but when you take out the tax cuts for the rich, the tax cuts go from costing us something like 3 trillion to something like 2 trillion. yet Obama/Democrats/whoever do not like do admit "we're cool with Bush-era tax cuts that theoretically cost us a couple trillion bucks" while they DO like to bitch about Bush killing the budget and jacking the national debt up. i feel --and hey, this is my opinion-- that you shouldn't get to bitch about the negative effect of the Bush tax cuts if you're leaving two-thirds of them in effect.
janklow;5160325 said:okay, but let me state this differently.FuriousOne;5158696 said:But still technically, he did extend taxes for the middle class with his very own tax plan aside from bush's efforts that was created during the stimulus program. He obviously doesn't consider tax cuts for the Middle Class as a negative effect on the economy but rather the tax cuts that aided the Rich far more then anyone else with no trickle down benefit.
when we talk about the "Bush tax cuts," i presume we're talking about the entire package of cuts Bush brought to the table, since as a whole, they're stated to have negatively impacted the US budget. but when you take out the tax cuts for the rich, the tax cuts go from costing us something like 3 trillion to something like 2 trillion. yet Obama/Democrats/whoever do not like do admit "we're cool with Bush-era tax cuts that theoretically cost us a couple trillion bucks" while they DO like to bitch about Bush killing the budget and jacking the national debt up. i feel --and hey, this is my opinion-- that you shouldn't get to bitch about the negative effect of the Bush tax cuts if you're leaving two-thirds of them in effect.
You can indeed bitch about a portion of those tax cuts which the Rich benefit from without need. There is a differing impact to those making over a certain amount which at some point adds no benefit to society being that they aren't hording while the middle class reinvest in America. If you feel a portion of those taxes add positive effect to the economy and benefit Americans and in turn America, then you can indeed be vocal about that. You overlooked the fact that. You don't actually have to appreciate all of the tax cuts that Bush implemented and yes it is political gamesmanship to mention his name, but he did implement cuts above a certain income that Obama would not have supported other then to be forced to at risk of loosing unemployment.
which completely misses the point, and has nothing to do with me overlooking the specific reason why you're cool with taxing the rich more. what i am actually talking about is bashing "the Bush tax cuts" for their total impact on the budget/debt while not mentioning that you're cool with the effect of 2/3 of those cuts when you talk about how Bush wrecked the budget/debt. waving it away as political gamesmanship overlooks the fact that what i am criticizing IS the political gamesmanship.FuriousOne;5161546 said:You can indeed bitch about a portion of those tax cuts which the Rich benefit from without need.
Quixotik_Bodhi
New member
There is no way for this to be a bad ting, it is going to happen reguardless of law enforcment. The criminal element has the market. Take that away, tax it moderate and control the quality.
Soloman_The_Wise
New member
we got the best here ask any buddy that travels the west coast even Cali Rappers come here for the goods...kingblaze84;5120643 said:Beautiful, I will seriously consider moving to Colorado or Washington in the future. Now let's see if the federal govt will still crack down on this (one of the reasons I voted Gary Johnson president tonight)
