Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The main problem about them wanting to end the tax cuts is that THE PROBLEM ISN'T FIXED. We've got a government hemorrhaging money and they want to fix the problem by taking more. Really?
If you have a company that loses $140 million in one year, do you think the investors will give them more to get them on track?
Or will they make sure that the foundation of the company is completely fixed before pumping money back in. You don't throw good money after bad. If they take more in taxes from anyone, they'll just waste that money too.
They're trying to spin it by saying "we're for the middle class" but they just want more money. They don't care where they get it.
There is still massive financial hemorrhaging going on. Any additional taxes they collect will just be thrown away.
FIX THE PROBLEM FIRST!
I can tell you EXACTLY how to fix the problem. Stop paying politicians $170,000 plus per year!! That will SAVE us money. We CAN'T AFFORD to spend money like that, especially in this economy. Secondly, CUT THE SIZE OF THE FED GOV'T! We can't AFFORD BIG Gov't anymore! Thirdly, LOWER TAX RATES! This economic strategy works!! Please Google Andrew Jackson and you will read how when he was president he CUT the size of gov't AND lowered taxes!! The economy was great!!!
At least the funding of wars and the defense of this Country is a power actually enumerated to the federal government in the Constitution. Socialist entitlement programs and federally funded unemployment insurance, not so much.
Cut spending to the bone! Shrink government and it's behemouth agencies at least in half.
Bravo!!! I can't rep you enough times for this post!!!
EXISTING TAX CUTS DO NOT COST MONEY!! If the tax RATES are existing(and they are) then the rates represent money the Fed gov't is NOT currently recieving. So it's absurd to speak about that money that ISN'T currently being collected as a program that is going to COST us money! It's money we currently DON'T get! Do you get that now???
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,400,252 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by K-Dawg
is that they never talk about the trillions upon trillions of dollars failed programs like Obamacare, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Section 8, Unemployment Benefits, the AARA add to the national deficit. They don't even mention how two foreign wars add to the deficit anymore, only when Bush was President. Yet they complain that the deficit will explode if they're not allowed to steal even more money from evil rich people who make $250,000 a year.
Interesting.
Maybe they bought into Cheney's "Deficits don't matter" blather
The funny thing about republicans and deficits is that they never talk about the trillions and trillions of dollars failed (read:ridiculous) wars add to the deficit.
Or corporate and farming subsidies.
They also won't talk about the fact that for all blather about cutting deficits historically you'd have to go back to the Eisnehower Administration to get a two term Republican President who was really fiscally responsible. If you want to cut the deficit the first step is make sure federal outlays aren't rising as fast as federal tax revenue.
Here is the record for every post World War II two term presidential administration in rates of the rate of federal outlays versus the rate of increases in tax revenue.
Under George Bush:
During the Bush 43 Administration in 2001 total federal expenditures were 1.8629 trillion dollars. In 2009 total federal expenditures were 3.5177 trillion dollars. So total federal expenditures increased by 88.8%. Federal tax revenue increased by 26.56% during this administration.
Under Bill Clinton:
During the Clinton Administrations in 1993 total federal expenditures were 1.409 trillion dollars. In 2001 total federal expenditures were 1.8629 trillion dollars. So total federal expenditures increased by 32%. Federal tax revenue increased by 75% during this administration.
Under Ronald Reagan:
During the Ronald Reagan Administration in 1981 total federal expenditures were 678.2 billion dollars. In 1989 total federal expenditures were 1.143trillion dollars. So total federal expenditures increased by 68.53%. Federal tax revenue increased by 51.2% during this administration.
Under Richard Nixon - Gerald R. Ford:
During the Nixon and Ford Administrations in 1969 total federal expenditures were 183.6 billion dollars. In 1977 total federal expenditures were 409.2 billion dollars. So total federal expenditures increased by 122.87%. Federal tax revenue increased by 59.50% during this administration.
Under John F. Kennedy - Lyndon B. Johnson
During the Kennedy - Johnson Administrations in 1961 total federal expenditures were 97.7 billion dollars. In 1969 total federal expenditures were 183.6 billion dollars. So total federal expenditures increased by 87.92%.
Federal tax revenue increased by 62.76% during this administration.
Under Dwight D. Eisenhower
During the Eisenhower Administration in 1953 total federal expenditures were 76.1 billion dollars. In 1961 total federal expenditures were 97.7 billion dollars. So total federal expenditures increased by 28.38%. Federal tax revenue increased by 46.46% during the administration.
From 1968 to 2008 we've had Republican presidential administrations in all but 12 years . Any Republican that ignores fact when discussing this or any other issue affecting this country is really not interesting in having an objective, intellectually honest conversation. But I'm not telling you something you don't already know.
Last edited by JazzyTallGuy; 12-07-2010 at 05:32 AM..
Simple facts The Repugs spent us into a mess and partly the dims have to react and keep it going. Face it the bailouts were underway as Obama took office so that spending was set in our course. but It is Obama that keeps these wars going an expands them. I don't have an issue with Obamacare as I do think it is a good idea and is funded, unlike Medicare part D when bush did that disaster.
I think both parties have played their roles in Social Security, Medicare/caiid and welfare and so forth.
The reality is we need a group of leaders that will cut budgets. Start with defense as it is the most bloated, un fund the war and it will stop.
eliminate Medicare part D. eliminate all the separate health systems, VA, government care (including the Congress care), Medicare/ Medicaid and make 1 national health care create efficiencies ( yes i realize it isn't a word the gov knows. but it must be learned.
stop subsidizing junk mail - that will fix the post office, reducing staff / or increasing income or both.
Eliminate the Federal Reserve - and stop these interest charges
put some government money in a green race and get the US off of foreign oil and oil in general.
end the war on drugs and legalize so we can reduce crime and save billions.
eliminate Homeland security and TSA ---- All they do is harass the good, they don't catch anything. do keep our intelligence network intact ( they have done more than Homeland can dream about)
stop farm subsidies don't pay farmers to not farm
require building to be at the highest efficiency level in fuel consumption/ production and preservation of energy.
insist on recycling of all materials that can be reused.
Close the expansionist military bases that serve no purpose.
Reduce foreign aid, eliminate aid that goes to the corrupt
Stop funding arms of the government that do nothing but launch attacks on wiki websites. Create transparency and end the shroud of secret and the money used to continue them.
Both parties have failed us and they point fingers distracting the people on both sides from the facts neither are doing what is best. We pay for things we simply can't afford and we need to live within our means. The government can help social programs ( and that doesn't mean we are socialist) We also need to stop getting distracted by labels and use the best of all systems.... While most in here would turn their noses up at Communism, that system has no unemployment so see there can be good in anything.
We should stop fighting among ourselves and unite as the People and get what we need done.
I wonder what would happen if we told our creditors we were broke and they could use our bonds for wall paper. I think it would be tough until we could revitialize our domestic economy and let the rest of the world go to hell in its own handbasket.
Funny thing about so-called "conservatives" and deficts.
They just got elected, or re-elected, promising to rein in the debt and do something about the deficit. Then, at their first opportunity, they pushed the administration into a compromise on the Bush tax cuts and unemployment which will ADD $900 BILLION to the deficit!
Did you catch that figure? For the benefit of those who voted those shysters back into office based upon their promise to cut the deficit, that was $900,000,000,000 to be added to the deficit....over just the next 2 years. That's only $100 billion shy of a TRILLION DOLLARS!
Oh, sorry...I should note in their defense that Boener has promised to find some way to pay for all that later.
"...The package would cost about $900 billion over the next two years, to be financed entirely by adding to the national debt, at a time when both parties are professing a desire to begin addressing long-term fiscal imbalances...."
Funny thing about so-called "conservatives" and deficts.
They just got elected, or re-elected, promising to rein in the debt and do something about the deficit. Then, at their first opportunity, they pushed the administration into a compromise on the Bush tax cuts and unemployment which will ADD $900 BILLION to the deficit!
Did you catch that figure? For the benefit of those who voted those shysters back into office based upon their promise to cut the deficit, that was $900,000,000,000 to be added to the deficit....over just the next 2 years. That's only $100 billion shy of a TRILLION DOLLARS!
Oh, sorry...I should note in their defense that Boener has promised to find some way to pay for all that later.
"...The package would cost about $900 billion over the next two years, to be financed entirely by adding to the national debt, at a time when both parties are professing a desire to begin addressing long-term fiscal imbalances...."
Wow! I guess I'll just have to keep reposting this message! Existing tax RATES(like the Bush ones that were already in existence) DON'T cost the FED Gov't money! Why? Because the rates that are IN EFFECT represent MONEY the FED Gov't IS NOT collecting from people, so how could extending the existing RATES cost "900 billion"???? Slimely politicians put this "spin" out there hoping you will repeat it! But if you simply think about it, the only way leftist progressives could make the arguement that it was COSTING the Fed Gov't money is if they ALREADY PLANNED ON SPENDING THE MONEY they hoped they would get from the biggest tax hike in history(which is was allowing the Bush tax RATES to expire would have accomplished!)
Wow! I guess I'll just have to keep reposting this message! Existing tax RATES(like the Bush ones that were already in existence) DON'T cost the FED Gov't money! Why? Because the rates that are IN EFFECT represent MONEY the FED Gov't IS NOT collecting from people, so how could extending the existing RATES cost "900 billion"???? Slimely politicians put this "spin" out there hoping you will repeat it! But if you simply think about it, the only way leftist progressives could make the arguement that it was COSTING the Fed Gov't money is if they ALREADY PLANNED ON SPENDING THE MONEY they hoped they would get from the biggest tax hike in history(which is was allowing the Bush tax RATES to expire would have accomplished!)
There's more to that agreement than just keeping the existing tax cuts, a lot of it at the insistance of the GOP. Read up on it.
But, even in spite of that, with budget deficits of over $1 trillion per year, "spending" that money wouldn't have been a problem, would it?
I'm not suggesting the tax cuts should have been allowed to expire, and neither am I suggesting that unemployment payments should have ended either. All I'm pointing out is that it all WILL cost the government $900 billion dollars over the next two years, whether that's in direct spending or reduced income, and that the GOP, WHO JUST GOT ELECTED PROMISING TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING, not only went along with it, but instigated a good portion of it!
Don't you see just a little bit of hypocrisy in that, just a little bit of lying to the voters, of saying one thing get elected, then doing something else? Or do you still insist on blaming just the liberals? If so, why? How are the so-called "conservative's" hands clean in all this?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
