Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-17-2011, 02:25 PM
 
13,900 posts, read 9,766,243 times
Reputation: 6856

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Backspace View Post
If they found a trillion that easily it just means they could cut 3 trillion.
That's what some on the left and right agreed to without taking on their own sacred cows. I the left would confront the fact that we need to shrink government and if the right would confront the fact we need more tax revenue, then we could easily get to 4 trillion in deficit reduction and get our AAA rating back.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-17-2011, 02:28 PM
 
12,436 posts, read 11,943,270 times
Reputation: 3159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks View Post
Read the proposal. I posted the link.

The PDF is at the bottom of the page that has the details.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2011, 02:34 PM
 
13,900 posts, read 9,766,243 times
Reputation: 6856
Quote:
Originally Posted by SimpleSal View Post
I think many outsiders can work together better then theinside the beltway cronies. Because we are NOT BOUGHT
I agree. We need cash out of politics and public financing of federal elections.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2011, 03:12 PM
 
58,973 posts, read 27,267,735 times
Reputation: 14265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gurbie View Post
I'd support this proposal if they included "Restore taxes to Clinton-era levels" Wonder why they omitted that obvious suggestion?

Since the two groups ignored increased revenue in their proposal, I'd say they are most likely corporate-sponsored lobbyists, trying to deflect the committees' attention away from their fat-cat clients' bank accounts.
I see a lot of conjecture on your part.

Do you have any proof?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2011, 03:27 PM
 
23,968 posts, read 15,063,270 times
Reputation: 12937
Thanks for the link.
This is a start.
They themselves said it was low hanging fruit. It made sense to this old woman and I support their effort.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2011, 03:32 PM
 
Location: outside of Deroit
227 posts, read 140,904 times
Reputation: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks View Post
I agree. We need cash out of politics and public financing of federal elections.


Did you vote for Obama? If so that don't mean that staement. Hell that was his 1st of many lies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2011, 03:34 PM
 
12,436 posts, read 11,943,270 times
Reputation: 3159
Quote:
Originally Posted by 0Newman0 View Post
Did you vote for Obama? If so that don't mean that staement. Hell that was his 1st of many lies.
Very articulate. I have no idea what you are talking about here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2011, 04:12 PM
 
33,387 posts, read 34,820,716 times
Reputation: 20030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks View Post
That's what some on the left and right agreed to without taking on their own sacred cows. I the left would confront the fact that we need to shrink government and if the right would confront the fact we need more tax revenue, then we could easily get to 4 trillion in deficit reduction and get our AAA rating back.
i rather like the plan, it is a good start. and i agree that government needs to be shrunk, and we need more tax revenue. understand however that more tax revenue does not mean higher tax rates.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2011, 05:40 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,621 posts, read 19,152,432 times
Reputation: 21738
Quote:
The Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit is a refundable tax credit that pays blenders for every gallon of ethanol mixed with gasoline.
You should be aware that the elimination of that program would result in a permanent increase in gasoline prices. It would only be a few pennies per gallon of gasoline at most.

Just some quick math, $60 Billion and ethanol production was 13.2 Billion gallons in 2010. Uh, that $4.54 per gallon. I may have to revise my statement on that. No doubt ethanol production increased by at least 1 Billion gallons this year.

We'd have to see how that would play out. It will be more than just a few pennies at the pump.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:14 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top