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.
It appears they used Democrat reasoning and said, "You guys did it for 40 years so now it is our turn". Haven't you seen the lefty say that very thing in this thread? Yep, the OP did say that
Let me get this straight. Republican Congresses from 1995 to 2001 were the driving force behind a series of budget surpluses and a projected 10-year surplus of well over $5 trillion, and then one day they suddenly flew off the handle competely and trashed the surpluses they had worked so hard to build up, turning them instead into huge deficits as far as they eye could see? And you want us to VOTE for these people???
Let me get this straight. Republican Congresses from 1995 to 2001 were the driving force behind a series of budget surpluses and a projected 10-year surplus of well over $5 trillion, and then one day they suddenly flew off the handle competely and trashed the surpluses they had worked so hard to build up, turning them instead into huge deficits as far as they eye could see? And you want us to VOTE for these people???
Before they would admit the mess George W. Bush left this country in they would sell their souls to Zeus or the sun god.
Can't you just see their exuberence after Cheney said "The Debt Doesn't Matter, Reagan Proved That" and they set out for two tax cuts, one in 2001 and another in 2003. They couldn't get many members of their own party to removed the tax rates Bill Clinton managed so they used the cursed reconciliation so 51 votes is all they needed...actually 50 because Cheney could serve as a tie breaker.
The number that was put out by CBO was very near $2 trillion and the Obamas tried to make those numbers smaller. I think that that number is too small for when it all takes place.
The number that was put out by CBO was more than $1 trillion over 20 years, but it's a SURPLUS, not a deficit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
Now do you want to discuss the new taxes that will be inserted by Obamacare to help pay for it? I bet you won't admit the number of taxes that will be levied from that "law".
There are various new taxes in the health care bill. Such as the one that eventually applies to high-cost cadillac health care plans. The tax and it's application are designed to provide time and incentive to bring the cost of those plans down. We can't afford to spend $1.30-something to get $1.00's worth of health care any more, you know.
The GD social security surplus should never have been inserted in the general fund because the Congress knew that they could never repay it to the taxpayers who paid it, like it or not. SS was never intended to be just another tax to go with income taxes. It had a purpose before the 1950s but things got changed a bit by Eisenhower and his Democrat Congress.
Eisenhower died in 1969. He didn't do anything at all in 1983.
I say that tax-the-rich is aimed at wealth redistribution. Tell me that is not involved here.
Roy, an economy is defined as "the distribution of resources." How those resources are distributed is determined by market behavior, which is subject to law. Any change in law (or indeed, any change in market behavior) serves to redistribute resources. That's how it works. "Redistribution" is not an evil activity. It is the normal manner in which economies operate. All decisions involve redistributing resources, be those decisions by a lawmaker, a CEO or a single mother. If it will help you, don't think in terms of redistribution; think in terms of managment. When a CEO drops a supplier and contracts with another, he is involved in resource redistribution, yet we don't call it that. We call it management. When the government makes changes in law, it is doing the exact same thing, only on a larger scale. You can disagree with the government's actions, or even hate the government; that doesn't change the fact that the government is managing the economy as a CEO manages a business.
The term "wealth redistribution" is a rhetorical device meant to inflame and enrage. Don't fall for it.
Let me get this straight. Republican Congresses from 1995 to 2001 were the driving force behind a series of budget surpluses and a projected 10-year surplus of well over $5 trillion, and then one day they suddenly flew off the handle competely and trashed the surpluses they had worked so hard to build up, turning them instead into huge deficits as far as they eye could see? And you want us to VOTE for these people???
what do you mean by "these people"
first off, Sagi, you of all people should know there is a DIFFERENCE between republican, conservative and Neo-con....just as there is a difference between democrat and liberal
convservatives ran from 1995 till 2000 and did well....neo-cons rino's screwed thing up after 2000
Before they would admit the mess George W. Bush left this country in they would sell their souls to Zeus or the sun god.
Can't you just see their exuberence after Cheney said "The Debt Doesn't Matter, Reagan Proved That" and they set out for two tax cuts, one in 2001 and another in 2003. They couldn't get many members of their own party to removed the tax rates Bill Clinton managed so they used the cursed reconciliation so 51 votes is all they needed...actually 50 because Cheney could serve as a tie breaker.
Sorry for being pedantic, but Cheney said deficits don't matter, not debt.
Before they would admit the mess George W. Bush left this country in they would sell their souls to Zeus or the sun god.
Can't you just see their exuberence after Cheney said "The Debt Doesn't Matter, Reagan Proved That" and they set out for two tax cuts, one in 2001 and another in 2003. They couldn't get many members of their own party to removed the tax rates Bill Clinton managed so they used the cursed reconciliation so 51 votes is all they needed...actually 50 because Cheney could serve as a tie breaker.
actually most CONSERVATIVES will tell you Bush was bad, and his OVERSPENDING, and just plain dumbness screwed up things
its the liberals that wont admit that obama is bush 44
and its the liberals RIGHT NOW that are saying debt doesnt matter...look at sagi
first off, Sagi, you of all people should know there is a DIFFERENCE between republican, conservative and Neo-con....just as there is a difference between democrat and liberal
convservatives ran from 1995 till 2000 and did well....neo-cons rino's screwed thing up after 2000
Agreed, but Congress was not filled with neo-cons. That was the administration. Republicans gave neo-cons a rubber stamp, and they can be held accountable for doing so.
What happened to the surpluses before 1983? Mostly they went into foreign aid just as should have been done from the general fund. Can you prove that FDR and his Brain Trust intended that SS should be what it became? Succeeding Congresses often don't see or ignore what previous ones meant to happen and we the sheep just allow ourselves to be crapped on.
Well, the original vision was that payroll taxes would be relied upon at all only through 1965, at which time the program was supposed to revert to being funded from general revenues. But subsequent Congresses thought that given how important the program had become, it would be foolish to subject it to annual partisan political haggling, so they stuck with the dedicated payroll tax funding mechanism. Good idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
Why is SS broke now and the baby boomers are just starting to retire if what you suggest is true? Somehow I don't think it is working. Maybe it is or isn't working because of shadowy bookkeeping.
Social Security isn't broke, Roy. Far from it. You've been listening to right-wing airheads again.
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.
