I'm betting against the preservation of federal tax cuts...

[matshock]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-16/senate-s-durbin-not-very-optimistic-bush-era-tax-cuts-will-be-extended.html

The democrats will use them a wedge issue and as a means of revenge against us who dared oppose their installation as permanent rulers.

Don't be surprised and don't forget it in 2012.

[El Laton Caliente]

This needs to be framed as the Obama / Democrat Tax Increase!

Always point out the only reason these are not permenant now is the dems...

[CigarGuy]

The thinking on the Republican side was they HAVE to keep the length of the cuts the same between the middle and upper class. In other words, IF they all negotiated a permanent middle class cut and a set number of years upper class cut, that when that set number of years came up, the Dems wouldn't extend them and the Repubs would have lost their "negotiating chip" by having the middle class cuts made permanent.
BEST chance is the Pubs, in the House, making ALL cuts permanent, somehow getting it through the Senate, and seeing if Obama would veto that?!

[mriddick]

Taxes going back up wouldn't bother me nearly as much if I had faith they would actually pay down the debt, since I have no faith in that giving them more money is like pouring gas on a fire. It's not the taxes it's how much they spend that's always been the issue.

They ought to link SSI retirement age to the average life expectancy, work on shrinking the gov't 5% or so a year, do away with all gov't pension plans (freeze those in them right now), put gov't employees on the same footing as private sector employees as far as raises go and amongst all other things stop trying to make those who don't work equal to those who do.

[matshock]

Taxes going back up wouldn't bother me nearly as much if I had faith they would actually pay down the debt, since I have no faith in that giving them more money is like pouring gas on a fire. It's not the taxes it's how much they spend that's always been the issue.

They ought to link SSI retirement age to the average life expectancy, work on shrinking the gov't 5% or so a year, do away with all gov't pension plans (freeze those in them right now), put gov't employees on the same footing as private sector employees as far as raises go and amongst all other things stop trying to make those who don't work equal to those who do.

Don't forget that the fact that a union pension being guaranteed by tax payers over and regardless of market forces is insane!

Look up legislation concerning "guaranteed retirement accounts" or GRAs and you'll see what their next big plan is.

[mriddick]

Don't forget that the fact that a union pension being guaranteed by tax payers over and regardless of market forces is insane!

Look up legislation concerning "guaranteed retirement accounts" or GRAs and you'll see what their next big plan is.

100% correct, you should have seen the last discussion me and my Columbus FD friend had over pensions. He doesn't understand why he's not entitled to the minimum payout of SSI for the few odd jobs he's worked over the years, all the while counting down the days till his 120% of gross pay pension. When started talking about how much he gives to make that pension work I nailed him on the GRA, and that's with Ohio really not in as bad shape as say IL or NY.

Still though I maintain the man problem is the liberal idea of making those who don't work equal to those who do. Even though public employees add no wealth to the nation they are at least working for what they take from the private sector. Those who don't work on the other hand are a two edge sword, not only do they add no wealth they often don't offer much to society either and often times work against it. At some point I think society will have to understand the private sector is the engine of the economy, rather then add on more stuff for the engine to bear we need to work on reducing the load it carries and let it run unhindered. There is little reason to work if the gov't will provide you with 90% of what those who do work have without the hassle of actually doing the labor for it (and to most dems the 90% figure is a somehow shameful figure).

[matshock]

100% correct, you should have seen the last discussion me and my Columbus FD friend had over pensions. He doesn't understand why he's not entitled to the minimum payout of SSI for the few odd jobs he's worked over the years, all the while counting down the days till his 120% of gross pay pension. When started talking about how much he gives to make that pension work I nailed him on the GRA, and that's with Ohio really not in as bad shape as say IL or NY.

Still though I maintain the man problem is the liberal idea of making those who don't work equal to those who do. Even though public employees add no wealth to the nation they are at least working for what they take from the private sector. Those who don't work on the other hand are a two edge sword, not only do they add no wealth they often don't offer much to society either and often times work against it. At some point I think society will have to understand the private sector is the engine of the economy, rather then add on more stuff for the engine to bear we need to work on reducing the load it carries and let it run unhindered. There is little reason to work if the gov't will provide you with 90% of what those who do work have without the hassle of actually doing the labor for it (and to most dems the 90% figure is a somehow shameful figure).

Yeah- that is the root cause of our economy being effectively frozen out of growth. The other side of that coin is that no one wants to start a new enterprise if all they get for it are threats of regulation, lawsuits and higher taxes.