Another contract "ON" America?

[Taichiliberal]

What's become more and more painfully apparent is the GOP's hypocrisy in wailing against the Dems and Obama as trying to destroy private industry and American job growth while ACTIVELY defending corporations that out source to foreign nations. Check this out:


Rep. Brady Acknowledges GOP Not Heeding ‘America Speaking Out,’ Will Ignore 2nd Most Popular Idea (Updated)

Today, Republicans will discuss their “Pledge to America,” the political agenda they plan to campaign on as they attempt to take control over the House of Representatives. The agenda is supposedly the culmination of a project GOP lawmakers launched — America Speaking Out — which was designed to give the public a virtual platform to submit ideas and then vote on them. As the Wonk Room’s Pat Garofalo reported last week, the second most popular item on the “job creation” section of America Speaking out was the user-submitted idea to “Stop the outsourcing of jobs from America to other countries that do not pay taxes into the U.S. and stop the tax breaks that are given to these companies that are outsourcing.”


For more, click on:

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/23/...-speaking-out/

[signalmankenneth]

[Mott the Hoople]

LOL I know, the same tired old bullshit.

I want to know. What specific programs are the Repubs going to cut spending on and don't give me this "discretionary spending" bullshit cause it don't amount to squat.

The minute one of these twit fucks say's "I'll cut military spending in half because we simply can't afford it" then I might take them seriously until then....there a joke.

[DamnYankee]

LOL I know, the same tired old bullshit.

I want to know. What specific programs are the Repubs going to cut spending on and don't give me this "discretionary spending" bullshit cause it don't amount to squat.

The minute one of these twit fucks say's "I'll cut military spending in half because we simply can't afford it" then I might take them seriously until then....there a joke.

This "contract" doesn't go far enough. We need to cut spending dramatically, by eliminating entire agencies.

[Canceled1]

This "contract" doesn't go far enough. We need to cut spending dramatically, by eliminating entire agencies.

TouchyLiberal B4: "Waaaahh...Waaaahh...Waaaahh!!! The neocons are the party of NO!. That's all they say and offer nothing. They just want to rip this adminstration apart and offer no solution/plan/ideas...Waaaahh...Waaaahh...Waaaahh!"

TouchyLiberal Today: "Waaaahh...Waaaahh...Waaaahh!!! They offer a plan I don't like. It's just the same plan as the last plan and it really isn't a plan at all. I just don't like it. I will never like it, because when it gets right down to it, I really only like to Waaaahh...Waaaahh...Waaaahh!!!"

[Mott the Hoople]

This "contract" doesn't go far enough. We need to cut spending dramatically, by eliminating entire agencies.

The US Military, it's related agencies and institutions and programs supporting and financing it account for more then half of government personnel and spending. Since we can neither afford the cost of such a large military and not to mention the threat such a large standing military represents to our democratic republic how much of it are you willing to cut? Please be specific and then when you get done with that let's talk about medicare and SS.

[DamnYankee]

The US Military, it's related agencies and institutions and programs supporting and financing it account for more then half of government personnel and spending. Since we can neither afford the cost of such a large military and not to mention the threat such a large standing military represents to our democratic republic how much of it are you willing to cut? Please be specific and then when you get done with that let's talk about medicare and SS.

Gates has suggested cutting the military by $100B. I'm good with that.

[Taichiliberal]

LOL I know, the same tired old bullshit.

I want to know. What specific programs are the Repubs going to cut spending on and don't give me this "discretionary spending" bullshit cause it don't amount to squat.

The minute one of these twit fucks say's "I'll cut military spending in half because we simply can't afford it" then I might take them seriously until then....there a joke.

Actually the could...being that Tom "the hammer" Delay is no longer around to threaten them. But that seems unlikely, as they are all drunk on the "Revenge of 2008" kool-aid.

[NOVA]

Congress has Colbert....we have TCL

[christiefan915]

What's become more and more painfully apparent is the GOP's hypocrisy in wailing against the Dems and Obama as trying to destroy private industry and American job growth while ACTIVELY defending corporations that out source to foreign nations. Check this out:


Rep. Brady Acknowledges GOP Not Heeding ‘America Speaking Out,’ Will Ignore 2nd Most Popular Idea (Updated)

Today, Republicans will discuss their “Pledge to America,” the political agenda they plan to campaign on as they attempt to take control over the House of Representatives. The agenda is supposedly the culmination of a project GOP lawmakers launched — America Speaking Out — which was designed to give the public a virtual platform to submit ideas and then vote on them. As the Wonk Room’s Pat Garofalo reported last week, the second most popular item on the “job creation” section of America Speaking out was the user-submitted idea to “Stop the outsourcing of jobs from America to other countries that do not pay taxes into the U.S. and stop the tax breaks that are given to these companies that are outsourcing.”
For more, click on:

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/23/...-speaking-out/

The "Pledge to America" doesn't stand up to fact-checking. Here are just a few problems with it.

Fact-Checking the Tax Provisions in the 'Pledge to America'
Pledge FactCheck.org criticizes the several "dubious factual claims" in the Republican Party's Pledge to America, including these tax provisions:

Pledge, page 14: Unless action is taken, a $3.8 trillion tax hike will go into effect on January 1, 2011 that will unravel these policies. A family of four with a household income of $50,000 a year will have to pay $2,900 more in taxes in 2011.

Fact: True, but misleading. What the Pledge fails to note is that Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress have consistently promised to extend the Bush tax cuts for all families making less than $250,000 a year, and singles making less than $200,000. It’s true that hasn’t happened yet, but the reason is that several House and Senate Democrats are agitating to extend the cuts for everybody, even those with the highest incomes.

Congress might yet fail to extend most or all the cuts before they are scheduled to expire next year. As we reported in a Sept. 3 Ask FactCheck item on this issue, there’s always a possibility that Congress will grind to a halt in a stalemate. And sure enough, on Sept. 23 Senate Democrats announced they would put off any vote on extending the cuts until after the election. A spokesman for Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said, "Democrats believe we must permanently extend tax cuts for the middle-class before they expire at the end of the year, and we will."

Pledge, page 14: [Obama] also wants to raise taxes on roughly half of small business income in America.

Fact: This is an exaggeration. Republicans are equating "net positive business income" reported on individual returns with "small business income," which isn’t correct. They rely on a report from the nonpartisan staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (p. 12), which estimated that about 3% of taxpayers who have any business income on their personal returns would see a tax increase under Obama’s proposal, and that those 750,000 taxpayers account for about half of all the business income reported.

But some of that income is from big businesses raking in tens of millions of dollars a year. The JCT stated quite clearly that "These figures for net positive business income do not imply that all of the income is from entities that might be considered ’small.’" Some in fact are quite large, and those big businesses account for a good chunk of that income.

The JCT said: "For example, in 2005, 12,862 S corporations and 6,658 partnerships had receipts of more than $50 million."

Republicans do have a point here. Many small businesses and some large fraction of small-business income will be adversely impacted by raising the top rate on individual taxpayers.

The fact is, though, that the JCT couldn’t estimate how much of the total business income was accounted for by "small" businesses, or how many of the 750,000 individuals affected own "small" busineses. What we do know is that a good deal less than half the small business income, and something less than three percent of small business owners, would be subject to higher taxes.

Pledge, page 28: Roughly 16,500 IRS auditors, agents, and other employees may be needed to collect the hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes levied on the American people by the new health care law.

Fact: This is simply not true. As we reported last March, this figure "stems from a partisan analysis based on guesswork and false assumptions, and compounded by outright misrepresentation." For an eye-opening account of how Republican staff members of the House Ways and Means committee came up with this inflated figure, see our Ask FactCheck item posted March 30. Most of what the IRS will do under the law is hand out tax credits, not collect penalties.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_b...-checking.html

[Taichiliberal]

The "Pledge to America" doesn't stand up to fact-checking. Here are just a few problems with it.

Fact-Checking the Tax Provisions in the 'Pledge to America'
Pledge FactCheck.org criticizes the several "dubious factual claims" in the Republican Party's Pledge to America, including these tax provisions:

Pledge, page 14: Unless action is taken, a $3.8 trillion tax hike will go into effect on January 1, 2011 that will unravel these policies. A family of four with a household income of $50,000 a year will have to pay $2,900 more in taxes in 2011.

Fact: True, but misleading. What the Pledge fails to note is that Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress have consistently promised to extend the Bush tax cuts for all families making less than $250,000 a year, and singles making less than $200,000. It’s true that hasn’t happened yet, but the reason is that several House and Senate Democrats are agitating to extend the cuts for everybody, even those with the highest incomes.

Congress might yet fail to extend most or all the cuts before they are scheduled to expire next year. As we reported in a Sept. 3 Ask FactCheck item on this issue, there’s always a possibility that Congress will grind to a halt in a stalemate. And sure enough, on Sept. 23 Senate Democrats announced they would put off any vote on extending the cuts until after the election. A spokesman for Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said, "Democrats believe we must permanently extend tax cuts for the middle-class before they expire at the end of the year, and we will."

Pledge, page 14: [Obama] also wants to raise taxes on roughly half of small business income in America.

Fact: This is an exaggeration. Republicans are equating "net positive business income" reported on individual returns with "small business income," which isn’t correct. They rely on a report from the nonpartisan staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (p. 12), which estimated that about 3% of taxpayers who have any business income on their personal returns would see a tax increase under Obama’s proposal, and that those 750,000 taxpayers account for about half of all the business income reported.

But some of that income is from big businesses raking in tens of millions of dollars a year. The JCT stated quite clearly that "These figures for net positive business income do not imply that all of the income is from entities that might be considered ’small.’" Some in fact are quite large, and those big businesses account for a good chunk of that income.

The JCT said: "For example, in 2005, 12,862 S corporations and 6,658 partnerships had receipts of more than $50 million."

Republicans do have a point here. Many small businesses and some large fraction of small-business income will be adversely impacted by raising the top rate on individual taxpayers.

The fact is, though, that the JCT couldn’t estimate how much of the total business income was accounted for by "small" businesses, or how many of the 750,000 individuals affected own "small" busineses. What we do know is that a good deal less than half the small business income, and something less than three percent of small business owners, would be subject to higher taxes.

Pledge, page 28: Roughly 16,500 IRS auditors, agents, and other employees may be needed to collect the hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes levied on the American people by the new health care law.

Fact: This is simply not true. As we reported last March, this figure "stems from a partisan analysis based on guesswork and false assumptions, and compounded by outright misrepresentation." For an eye-opening account of how Republican staff members of the House Ways and Means committee came up with this inflated figure, see our Ask FactCheck item posted March 30. Most of what the IRS will do under the law is hand out tax credits, not collect penalties.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_b...-checking.html

Thanks Christie....but as you can see, FACTS are light sunlight to a vampire for our resident neocon halfwits Bravo and USloyalend....neither can logicall or factually refute your post or my post. You've got to wonder how many Americans are as equally dumb to accept this new swill from the GOP come elections?

[Crashk]

The "Pledge to America" doesn't stand up to fact-checking. Here are just a few problems with it.

Fact-Checking the Tax Provisions in the 'Pledge to America'
Pledge FactCheck.org criticizes the several "dubious factual claims" in the Republican Party's Pledge to America, including these tax provisions:

Pledge, page 14: Unless action is taken, a $3.8 trillion tax hike will go into effect on January 1, 2011 that will unravel these policies. A family of four with a household income of $50,000 a year will have to pay $2,900 more in taxes in 2011.

Fact: True, but misleading. What the Pledge fails to note is that Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress have consistently promised to extend the Bush tax cuts for all families making less than $250,000 a year, and singles making less than $200,000. It’s true that hasn’t happened yet, but the reason is that several House and Senate Democrats are agitating to extend the cuts for everybody, even those with the highest incomes.

Congress might yet fail to extend most or all the cuts before they are scheduled to expire next year. As we reported in a Sept. 3 Ask FactCheck item on this issue, there’s always a possibility that Congress will grind to a halt in a stalemate. And sure enough, on Sept. 23 Senate Democrats announced they would put off any vote on extending the cuts until after the election. A spokesman for Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said, "Democrats believe we must permanently extend tax cuts for the middle-class before they expire at the end of the year, and we will."

Pledge, page 14: [Obama] also wants to raise taxes on roughly half of small business income in America.

Fact: This is an exaggeration. Republicans are equating "net positive business income" reported on individual returns with "small business income," which isn’t correct. They rely on a report from the nonpartisan staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (p. 12), which estimated that about 3% of taxpayers who have any business income on their personal returns would see a tax increase under Obama’s proposal, and that those 750,000 taxpayers account for about half of all the business income reported.

But some of that income is from big businesses raking in tens of millions of dollars a year. The JCT stated quite clearly that "These figures for net positive business income do not imply that all of the income is from entities that might be considered ’small.’" Some in fact are quite large, and those big businesses account for a good chunk of that income.

The JCT said: "For example, in 2005, 12,862 S corporations and 6,658 partnerships had receipts of more than $50 million."

Republicans do have a point here. Many small businesses and some large fraction of small-business income will be adversely impacted by raising the top rate on individual taxpayers.

The fact is, though, that the JCT couldn’t estimate how much of the total business income was accounted for by "small" businesses, or how many of the 750,000 individuals affected own "small" busineses. What we do know is that a good deal less than half the small business income, and something less than three percent of small business owners, would be subject to higher taxes.

Pledge, page 28: Roughly 16,500 IRS auditors, agents, and other employees may be needed to collect the hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes levied on the American people by the new health care law.

Fact: This is simply not true. As we reported last March, this figure "stems from a partisan analysis based on guesswork and false assumptions, and compounded by outright misrepresentation." For an eye-opening account of how Republican staff members of the House Ways and Means committee came up with this inflated figure, see our Ask FactCheck item posted March 30. Most of what the IRS will do under the law is hand out tax credits, not collect penalties.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_b...-checking.html

Their 'Pledge to America' will turn into a 'Plague on America'... again.

[signalmankenneth]

[NOVA]

Looks to me like your splitting hairs and the "Pledge to America" is factual...without the "ifs", "buts" and "might bes" you add.....