Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Paul3144, Aug 1, 2011.
I'm not celebrating because it didn't cut enough. There will be no cuts. There will be a committee to look at cuts. They will recommend cuts and their recommendations will not be accepted. This will give the White House the authority to make across the board cuts. This will give the Dems the long sought after ability to cut defense.
Also, the Bush tax cuts will expire and that will be a tax increase.
Disappointed because it's business as usual. They kicked the can down the road once again. There will be no real cuts.
And while I´m not bounding with joy, hundreds of thousands of American Veterans that are unable to support themselves and families, including me and mine, can live for a few more months to apply pressure on the Lawyers we hate and despise so much that perhaps the American people will finally awaken and remember why our founding fathers did not make it a law for the Lawyers not to be able to serve.
I'm not celebrating because,
this manufactured crisis didn't go to waste.
I'm not celebrating because the rich will continue to get richer and most of the people who think they are middle class will discover they are now blue collar/white collar working class and without a union to represent them.
Such statements are ignorant or intentionally ignore a great many facts. This mess should have been taken care of a long time ago. But Obama and company wanted to use it to pressure republicans and lost. Further both sides of the isle used it to get what they want. Trying to push blame and criticism on this way on one side of the isle is just not honest.
The foundation for this mess was laid when the Republican congress and Republican president cut taxes, raised spending and went into two unjust and very expensive wars. We and our great-grandchildren will all pay for this.
Cutting spending will take away jobs ... and the rich will still have their loop holes to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. The middle class and the poor will become less wealthy.
We need to reduce spending, but we also need to bring in more revenues and the only way to do that is to make companies pay more and have the rich to pay more. Less spending means less demand. Less demand means fewer jobs. A drastic cut in spending, as some ask for, would be like two people on a seesaw and on person jumps off the the other slams into the ground. It would be disaster.
Small business will not be able to create new jobs. I believe it was the Pew Research Foundation that this week published a report saying that for the last 20 years it has not been small business that has created new jobs ... regardless of what some Republican congressmen say.
Insisting on pursuing narrow ideological agendas will only insure a further demise of our economy.
I said fifteen years ago that the US had passed through a golden age and were on a downward spiral. I see nothing to show that is not true and that the grade just got steeper. We may drift on momentum the rest of my life, but we will not be what we were or what we could be if both the Republicans and Democrats would begin making the hard choices that are going to have to be made at some point. The longer Congress waits to make those choices the more painful they will be for "We the people".
Obama and the Dems had 2 years when they controlled all branches - why did they not craft legislation to let the Bush tax cuts expire on the evil rich? They could've even made permanent the tax cuts to the middles class and raised them on the evil rich. Why? Why didn't they do this?
Would you have supported them in this? The Bush tax cuts will expire if nothing is done. Time will erase them. But it is not enough. Taxes need to be raised for the rich and for corporations. And the raise in taxes need to be aided with reduced spending.
Also if you remember the Republicans agreed that they would oppose in mass anything that Obama proposed.
Please do not use the hyperbole of hating the rich. It is a nice catch phrase but adds nothing to a discussion. But a progressive tax structure should be progressive. Those making over $250,000 certainly can afford to pay more.
It's funny to see the class-warfare card pulled. If team zero had actually done what they promised, the wars would be over. Gitmo closed. The Patriot Act a goner. Imagine how many people that money coukld help ?But the blind, jealous, and lazy who refuse to be critical of a black president, now turn on "the rich". The hypocricy is astounding.
I find nothing more disgusting about the left than their demanding that other people give more. It makes me sick. Pharisees, every one of them.
Are you playing the race card?
Are you rich? How do you know I am "other people"?
In a thread from a month or so ago, you posted something similar; and I took the time to look up the percentage of the "rich" in the U.S., and do some numerical analysis to see just how much of an impact raising their taxes would make; the result was somewhat negligible. You never responded to that analysis. I prefer to assume that you didn't see the analysis, rather than simply ignored it so that you could continue to spread your communistic rhetoric about taxing the rich.
Doesn't matter what I think. You didn't answer my question. I'd like to hear your answer.
Doesn't matter - the Dems had firm control of both houses - they could've easily passed any legislation they wanted. They could've even stopped a filibuster.
The tax structure is already progressive.
250K a year isn't that rich - it's upper middle class. Why not lower it to 150K - they can afford to pay more, right? Or how about 100K? Families making 100K are pretty well off. Heck, even 75K and you are doing ok. So why 250K? Is it because your idol Obama said 250K? Learn to think for yourself.
I have to reluctantly agree. When Bush 2 became president we were running a budget surplus, paying down the national debt and had budget surpluses forecast for several years. The prescription drug benefit and farm subsidies were the two biggies that Bush pushed through Congress.
What do you think the cost of the wars has been? Answer: $1.2 Trillion dollars over the past (almost) 10 years. That is an average of 330 million dollars PER DAY. I repeat, $330 million PER DAY.
Depends on what is cut. If you cut government contracts that buy goods and products from private businesses, then yes.
Actually there is an alternative argument. Lower the tax rates and close loopholes. If the rich feel they are not getting ripped off by taxes, tax avoidance will go down and revenues will increase.
Again, it depends. Less spending on (most) entitlements means less wasting of money. There is not much demand for goods in entitlements, only demand for services. For most government programs there is no real demand, there is entitlement. This is simply the shifting of money from one group of people (producers) to another group (dependents.)
I'd like to see that article. Can you provide a link?
Yes, they passed the stimulus bill without a single Republican vote. They passed ObamaCare with only one Republican vote. They could have done anything.
I find it curious that they didn't call for a vote on letting the Bush tax cuts expire BEFORE the 2010 elections. They could have easily accomplished it. Could it be that even the Dems know that raising taxes in a recession (or a weak recovery) is detrimental to economic growth?
Yes, we were running a surplus and the debt was to be paid down. Sadly this changed rapidly after the 2000 election. I probably voted for Bush. I can't remember for sure. I carried my and my spouse's absentee ballot to the States from China where we had been working. She stayed longer than I that year.
There was a time when farm subsidies helped the family farm. That is no longer true. They help big agribusiness. I think they should be eliminated.
I saw this report referenced on TV recently. I have done some searching today, but have not found it. Here is a link. I am not sure it is to the same report I saw being discussed.
Hurray for start-ups. Note he said small mature companies. Just an information point.
No; even the Dems know that raising taxes just before an election is a sure way to lose the election.
Interestingly enough, reports say that in the first 19 months of the Obama administration, federal debt increased by $2.5 trillion.
Not saying that the wars are "right" or "wrong"; just commenting on your inclusion of their contribution to the national debt. $1.2T over ten years, vice $2.5T in 19 months.
Yes, Obama has really ratcheted up the acceleration of the debt.
The difference is that the cost of war is not included in the budget. It is a "special funding" bill that is voted on separately.
Crabby, what "2" wars are unjust? Surely you're not including us attacking the Taliban in Afghanistan after 9/11 are you?