Just don't call it raising taxes.

Fact: Until he made his as-expected post, I didn't direct any comments at or to him.

Are you indicating that he is the owner of the thread? Or are you implying that a comment to someone else in the discussion constitute a response to him?

Regards,
BiR

 

Ah, and I guess that your juvenile personal attacks offer something relevant to the discussion?

Perhaps you could stop your usual M.O. and actually address a comment/question that I have made?

I have often wondered what is the source of your seemingly angry faith? Although I have been gone for a while, I don't think I ever saw you make a comment that is either gracious or congenial. Thus far, it appears that nothing has changed. Bro. Curtis and I disagreed on a large range of issues, but he was gracious in his replies. I don't think (or at least cannot recall) a single exchange with you that was pleasant. Most are like the one in this discussion that you initiated (I certainly never directed anything at you in this discussion).

Amazing.....

Regards anyway,
BiR

 

I'm implying that you are definately not the owner.

And yer own team zero is the reason corporations still rule the roost, in D.C..

Gee, still got lots of wars, Gitmo is still open, and the Patriot act looms over us like a dark cloud. They all cost money' yknow....like more than you can count. Instead of asking your president to actually honor his promises, you turn on "the rich" to pay their fair share. And attack carpro. And throw hissy fits.



Attack anyone you want, this is a democrat-owned economy.

BTW, got to Mountain Bike in Moab, Utah last fall. You GOT to go there.

 

Why is it all right to reduce benefits to the elderly, the middle class and the poor when that, in essence, is a sneaky tax raise as they pay the same and get less, and yet it is not all right to have the rich pay more?

 

The rich do not need to pay more when we become more responsible and constitutional with our federal spending. Raising taxes halts effects tax revenues negatively since it slows down the economy. Which is evidence by the fact that the left wants to raise taxes on behavior they deem bad in order to get it frequency reduced. And benefits, like SS, need to be lowered because of the irresponsible spending habits of both parties. You can't reasonably blame it on lack of taxes. That is not what got us in this mess. Spending more than we got coming in did. When that is brought under control then we can discuss a raise in benefits. Lowered benefits is bad. But the irresponsible money handling from both parties has created circumstances and consequences that cannot nor should be avoided.

 

They why must benefits to the poor, middle class and elderly be cut?
Why do you love the rich and defend them and not love those mentioned and want to help them?

At the final judgement will we Christ say, "I was rich and ye helped me," or will he say "I was hungry, thirsty, etc. and ye helped me"?

Yes, the Republicans took what was going to be a budget surplus and turned it into a huge deficit.

But that is not the point. Your suggesting is like telling my boss, "Hey buddy, I can get out of debt quicker if you do not give me a pay raise. In fact I will get out of debt quicker if you give me a pay cut."

It does not make sense.

I believe we have to do both, cut spending and raise taxes on the rich and corporations. Once the debt is zeroed out then we can reduce taxes and continue to hold down spending.

 

Even cutting spending and raising taxes cannot fix our debt problem. It is too great. If you don't believe that then set down and lay out your program in real numbers and show us how it can be done.

 

No we need to repeal much of the spending put in place, bring our troops home, stop all foreign aid, cut entitlements, and leave taxes either at the level they are now or cut them.

 

The numbers are daunting, but we have decades to work on the problem. I wouldn't give up trying to pay down the debt. In fact, it's not necessary to pay down the debt to zero, since the U.S. will always have revenue sources. It IS necessary to get the debt down to manageable levels. Carrying some debt is not a bad thing, if the money being used is for long term improvements. Like the homeowner that buys a house or finances a college education, the U.S. government can have worthwhile things to finance. But I do agree there are way too many things the U.S. is wasting money on.

 

Those are just words. Show me in numbers how this will fix the debt.

 

And yet, I never claimed ownership. I never claimed anything at all.

Nah, that's the fault of the GOP - they brought them there. I will note that the Democrats really didn't do anything to reverse that trend.

Though you make a great point, the GOP was the guilty party in terms of getting us all the items you reference. I am indeed disgusted with the perpetuation; nevertheless, the GOP was in power when all these things were implemented.

I am not affiliated with a particular political party, so there's not much I can do. If anything, I am still on the GOP mailing lists, as I was an active Republican years ago (prior to 2000).

As for turning on "the rich," are you implying that they shouldn't bear the burden along with everyone else? Should the poor and the working class be the only ones to make sacrifices? The talk is that we should restrict entitlements (and I agree with that), and some would like to break the collective bargaining agreements for unions. Why should these people be the only ones forced to make sacrifices? The so-called Bush tax cuts aren't doing anything to get us out of the recession, so why should they not share in the burden? A point worth noting is that I am referring to the true wealthy - not just those living comfortably who perceive themselves as wealthy.

What about the corporations - who aren't hiring and in some cases aren't paying taxes at all? Manufacturing is gone, and is most likely going to remain gone - at least in our lifetimes. Many who refer to President Obama as a "socialist" are buying products that are made in a communist country that has total control over wages. Many of the products that aren't made in that country are made in a country with a caste system, that has a permanent underclass with NO chance to move up socioeconomically. They aren't bringing those jobs back to us, and undoubtedly never will. Exactly why shouldn't they participate in this as well? Why should those companies who have moved their income offshore be given a lower tax rate (as some have suggested)?

I didn't attack him - go back and read the posts. I never even responded directly to carpro until carpro had to make this personal - as carpro usually does. Carpro is guilty of that which he accuses - follows me and harrasses. It's right there - I can't alter carpro's posts, nor can I alter mine.

According to the Sean Hannity, the grownups are in charge now. Besides, President Obama inherited this economy from former President Bush, much like the recession that Bush inherited from former President Clinton.

Ugh - read Bike magazine on a flight to New York, and saw the pictures. I would love to go there. Went to Devils Den in Arkansas and found out (the hard way) that there is a BIG difference between trail riding and mountain biking.

Still riding the Cannondale? I now ride a Kona and I love it. Still cannot believe that the Cannondale factory in New Bedford, PA that I got to see is no longer making bikes.....

Regards, hope all is well with you and yours,
BiR

 

Well then show me in real numbers how to pay down the debt. Right now the government is proposing to cut between 2 and 9 trillion dollars mostly 2 to 4 trillion over 10 years. However even with that amount of painful cutting we would still grow the debt conservatively between 6 and 13 trillion over the same 10 years. So you show me in real numbers what you would cut and how much so that the debt is cut even a little.
I am telling you we have went too far, the debt is too great. We are currently borrowing 41% of every dollar we spend a year. Show me in real numbers how to cut 41 plus percent from the budget and or raise taxes enough a year to bring the debt down. We WILL at some point in the near future default and lose just about everything we have and fall as the nation we have been.

 

So, if I understand you correctly, the elderly should bear the brunt of this? Despite working to retirement and paying into the system and trusting that it would be there for them, the elderly should be the ones to suffer?

Regards,
BiR

 

No you did not understand me correctly. But with regards to this I misspoke in that I should not have include SS. If that was being handled correctly there would be no need for any changes to it. The truth is it has been used as a general fund and now the funds are weak. Even if we raise taxes on all the "wealthy" it would not cover the need for SS alone. But it would do tremendous damage to the economy.

 

How would raising the taxes on the rich do more damage to the economy than making the elderly and middle-class poorer through reduced benefits? Reducing the benefits means they will have to pay the same in taxes for less and more to private companies to make up the difference of what was taken away.

 

A large chunk of SS payments could be cut out, without hurting anyone. Put a cap on it...anyone who has an income of 250k or more, or who has a net worth of more than 1 million dollars, should not get it. Same with Medicare.

 

Simple. Raising taxes ALWAYS results in rises in unemployment. This results in less taxes, overall. Raising taxes actually lowers the total tax revenue, kills jobs, and bombs the economy.

Elderly who are worth more than a million dollars, or who have incomes in excess of 200k, have no business receiving SS checks, or medicare benefits.

 

Always? What about the tax increase of 1993 under Bill Clinton?

It also depends on what type of tax is raised.

I generally agree with this but there are probably exceptions. Tax hikes do not necessarily kill jobs, it depends on what type of tax is being altered.

Agree.

 

Start with a balanced budget to stop the bleeding. I don't have to show 'real numbers' because the U.S. will always have revenues. It is enough to embark on a couple of decades long process of lowering the debt. Again, the debt doesn't need to be zero, just manageable.

Do you have a link, or can you cite a reference for this 41% number?

"The near future" being how many years? Because foreign countries don't seem too worried about it based on their continued purchases of U.S. debt securities.