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.
No. I was staying within the topic proposed by the OP. The OP's point was that he would prefer that the government demonstrate some fiscal responsibility before taking more tax dollars. He even said that if that was demonstrated, he would be more willing to listen to a convsersation about the need for increased taxes. Another poster said that the tax revenue would be used to pay debt. I said that historically that hasn't been the case and the current group shows no evidence of being any different.
Hence my extension of that logic, if we tax increase doesn't guarantee paying off debt, do spending cuts?
Hence my extension of that logic, if we tax increase doesn't guarantee paying off debt, do spending cuts?
That wasn't the premise of the discussion. The discussion is about the financial irresponsibility of the people in office and the fact that nothing is going to lead to paying off debt because of the irresponsibility. The point the OP was making is that if the money is going to be used irresponsibily, he would rather keep his own.
That wasn't the premise of the discussion. The discussion is about the financial irresponsibility of the people in office and the fact that nothing is going to lead to paying off debt because of the irresponsibility. The point the OP was making is that if the money is going to be used irresponsibily, he would rather keep his own.
If premise of the discussion includes ways to pay off debt, it warrants more than a one-trick pony argument, no?
Hence my extension of that logic, if we tax increase doesn't guarantee paying off debt, do spending cuts?
Yeah, the great society program failure has out of wedlock births at 70%, in the 40s before such programs and even after slavery most all of the families had a mother and father. The welfare state stopped the growth of normal families and paid for failure.
All the socialist nations have beyond 50% out of wedlock births because they pay for that. The welfare state is a failure and it costs us an arm and a leg.
We bloated also the hell out of government employment and paid them like they should be wealthy on the tax payer dollar.
So fire a bunch of government employment.
GREATLY reduce the government employment.
BUST the teacher's union to reality and get kids educated again.
The wealthy pay a majority of their income to government now, unless you make others do it first you are going to stall the economy further.
Obama's health care kills jobs with the requirement for health care.
Many will close up. Many will retire or do very tiny operations around the law.
Rather than increase taxes, reduce spending in government.
Anything else will close us down even further.
In America we strive for equality for all. One should not be treated differently or have to carry more of a burden simply because they have a different economic status. Do onto others what you want done onto you. I don't want my money confiscated by the government so I'm not going to vote to have other people's money confiscated from the government. It's not about "protecting the rich", it's about protecting fairness and equal property rights for all Americans.
Really? Do you really think the rich are worried about protecting the poor? Or equality for the poor? Please. They THRIVE on the poor.
Go shovel that tripe somewhere else.
It's only called class war when the poor fight back. Go chew on that one.
If premise of the discussion includes ways to pay off debt, it warrants more than a one-trick pony argument, no?
When has government ever reduced itself without being broke?
Their power is in the spending. They spend spend spend by their very nature.
Where are especially the great Democrat fiscal conservatives?
Since Kennedy I don't know of any, so we have to FORCE the Democrats and Republicans to be responsible.
Back also to the Balanced Budget Amendment.
They are never going to pay the debt unless forced to do so. That is my opinion.
Keep in mind that in a fairly short time many will be seniors and to handle that we will need a bare necessity government and almost zero long term social programs just to deal with that issue.
IMO, first restrict the spending.
Secondly make them do something like take all the death taxes on estates and force them to pay the debt down with them.
Even if we were right now balanced we'd still need a balanced budget amendment because they would spend spend spend again.
It's a spending cancer, mostly for power and to retain their jobs more than once.
If premise of the discussion includes ways to pay off debt, it warrants more than a one-trick pony argument, no?
The premise of the discussion was not about ways to pay off debt. It may have included an argument some make about a way to pay off debt, but it was suggesting that the debt simply is not going to be paid off because of irresponsibility of government, not because of the chosen method, but because they just aren't going to do it. The OP was saying that if they demonstrated some responsibility, he would be more interested in entertaining the conversation you're trying to have now about the best method.
Einstein's Ghost, I do not believe I have ever seen you make a substantial and coherent argument. Everything you post is essentially playing with word and logic games and then trying to tie that to someone losing an argument.
Einstein's Ghost, I do not believe I have ever seen you make a substantial and coherent argument. Everything you post is essentially playing with word and logic games and then trying to tie that to someone losing an argument.
I will spell it out for you in a way that is easier to understand:
raising taxes can have negative consequences; however, cuts in government spending can also have negative consequences. Both of these things can also have positive consequences. There is no one-size-fits-all ideology that produces positive results in every situation.
if you stop funding the inspection of bridges, for example, and one of them falls down -- that is a negative consequence. The economy suffers, sometimes, when you cut government spending. When you castrate the S.E.C., the O.C.C. and the O.T.S. and let financial fraud run rampant, that has negative economic consequences in the form of severe instability, malinvestment, loss of trust between financial entities, and high unemployment.
Furthermore, raising taxes is not "always" bad. It does not always lead to any particular conclusion.. the devil is in the details. The fact that the GOP leadership claims it will be a bad thing, does not make it a bad thing. Taking it off the table is nothing more than stupidity.
Last edited by le roi; 06-06-2011 at 04:57 PM..
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.
