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.
Repubs would rather send the economic back into a recession then a single increase to give the country enough time to bring revenue back up. Plus enact all their favored social reforms for the most needy, and cuts to the wealthiest citizens. Just goes to show people who they really work for.
They are just scrambling around trying to keep Obama from making them look small....they are losing the struggle. They are small.
I see your point (in bold) At the same time, revenues should match expenditures. When someone is trying to get out of debt they not only cut spending but they try to increase their income. People do that all the time, and it works.
The per capita tax burden as a function of GDP has tripled since 1960.
Businesses expand on demand, businesses don't expand when they have extra cash (like from tax breaks)...they would just be making products they would need to store. That's why there have been great dividends and stock buy backs recently.
Is it really right that tax payers should allocate tax breaks to the rich people so they can buy luxury products instead of helping people have enough healthy food to eat and a home over their head?
If you are doing it just to make sure some one "earns" every penny serving the rich, it seems a bit...wrong to me.
Then revamp the tax code completely to a consumption based tax instead and in place of the income tax. It should outrage everyone that the IRS is used by our government as a ghestapo against its citizens. Everyone must have some skin in paying taxes to get entitlement spending under control. The tax base must be widened so that those who rely on the government as their sole provider cannot vote themselves raises without having it affect their own pocket as well. Those who consume more, those with disposable income, will pay more and think little of it because it will be their choice and not a decree by Ceasar.
Nothing, just a government shut down. The President will secure enough debt to pay our debt and its interest. We won't go bankrupt or not honor our debt. Its against the law to not honor our debts and its interest.
The answer to the OP's question is simple. The Republicans are opposed to it for the same reason that the Democrats and Obama was opposed to it when Bush asked for it to be raised.
Then revamp the tax code completely to a consumption based tax instead and in place of the income tax.
I would be interested in a VAT, but to stop the operation of an entire country to wait for some one to go through with the process of making the system and requiring everyone to vote favorably without debate or else nothing will happen is insane.
Stopping federal operations such as paychecks to the military payments of Social Security/Medicare (for food and life saving treatments) until people do it is pretty foul for anyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal
It should outrage everyone that the IRS is used by our government as a ghestapo against its citizens.
Invoking Godwin's Law on the second sentence? New record for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal
Everyone must have some skin in paying taxes to get entitlement spending under control.
That's very bizarre circular logic. Give people money, tax them on it, and need to pay them more money in taxes to make up the difference between the cost of the item and the tax.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal
The tax base must be widened so that those who rely on the government as their sole provider cannot vote themselves raises without having it affect their own pocket as well.
So, if I pay no taxes I don't vote? I feel bad for college students or those who live with a family member. Interesting concept, besides the cost of the enforcement otherwise. With a consumption based tax....conceivably anyone who buys something could get a vote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal
Those who consume more, those with disposable income, will pay more and think little of it because it will be their choice and not a decree by Ceasar.
That doesn't make any sense. Are you saying a several thousand year old dictator is making people buy stuff?
Its against the law to not honor our debts and its interest.
The government will end up breaking the law.
There's only so much we can borrow. Eventually, countries will refuse to loan us money. Then what?
What would China do if the US said it would not repay the money they loaned it?
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.
They are small.
So what would happen if we did not raise our debt ceiling?
