Dems and taxes

[Legend]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
All we have to do to balance the budget is control spending. That was the lesson of the 90s that we seem to have forgotten.

From 1993 to 2000 the budget increased by a total of $500 billion a year.
From 2000 to 2008 it will have increased by over a $1 trillion a year. if we had limited that growth just a bit, say $700 billion, we would have had balanced budgets for almost the entire time.

Also, a lot of you like to argue that Obama's expected increases in spending are ok because they will be domestic spending. Well Bush has increased domestic spending by $700 billion a year!!!! With that kind of increase you would think you Democrats would be loving Bush.

What's the real value of that spending? Nominal values are pretty useless when monetary inflation is high.

What is that $700 billion being used for? Some "security" bullshit?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: bamacre

And your pal, McCain?

Glad you asked
Huffington Post no less

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) plans to promise on Monday that he will balance the federal budget by the end of his first term by curbing wasteful spending and overhauling entitlement programs, including Social Security, his advisers told Politico.

So we have a clear choice.

Obama who has no plan to balance the budget or McCain who says he will balance it by the end of his term.

You probably shouldn't be so glad he asked. Factcheck.org checked out his budget plan and found it to be a fantasy. I mean, it's embarrassing how badly they shredded him.

So we do have a clear choice, we have Obama who may not be a saint when it comes to budget issues, and we have McCain who is just literally making shit up.

 

[Vic]

The Pubs have no intention of cutting spending. They haven't spent your great-great-great-grandchildren's tax cuts yet.

 

[umbrella39]

Every 4 years it becomes painfully obvious who hates America. Someone has to pay for the R's fuck ups. That someone is all of us. Thanks Bush fanbois.

 

[sandorski]

Raising Taxes is a key part of Deficit elimination.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: bamacre

And your pal, McCain?

Glad you asked
Huffington Post no less

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) plans to promise on Monday that he will balance the federal budget by the end of his first term by curbing wasteful spending and overhauling entitlement programs, including Social Security, his advisers told Politico.

So we have a clear choice.

Obama who has no plan to balance the budget or McCain who says he will balance it by the end of his term.

You probably shouldn't be so glad he asked. Factcheck.org checked out his budget plan and found it to be a fantasy. I mean, it's embarrassing how badly they shredded him.

So we do have a clear choice, we have Obama who may not be a saint when it comes to budget issues, and we have McCain who is just literally making shit up.

It's just too bad we don't even need to fact check the other guy's plan to know it's full of shit.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: ChrisFromNJ

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Phynaz
Why is it every time a Democratic political candidate opens his or her mouth the first thing out of it is talk of raising taxes?

Why are you voting for the Republicans who have shot up our spending so that we have to raise taxes to pay off the debt, instead of the budget balancing party?

Ahh, ignorance of history. Wonderful. Well done Craig. Theres that blind partisanship shining through. "MY party doesnt spend..."

Uh huh.

Who was the last president to balance the budget?

Who were the last 3 presidents not to balance the budget? What party did they belong to?

What an overly simplistic view of the world. Congrats!
Perhaps you forget congress appropriates the bugdet and the president signs it into law?

Go back and find us all the presidents who have had balanced budgets over the history of our country.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Phynaz
Why is it every time a Democratic political candidate opens his or her mouth the first thing out of it is talk of raising taxes?

Why are you voting for the Republicans who have shot up our spending so that we have to raise taxes to pay off the debt, instead of the budget balancing party?

Ahh, ignorance of history. Wonderful. Well done Craig. Theres that blind partisanship shining through. "MY party doesnt spend..."

Uh huh.

Your attack of 'ignorance of history' could serve a purpose if you backed it up with facts and substance, but you can't, leaving you look like the loudmouth you are.

Let's consider history, in a very brief summary:

US History 1789 - 1980: small to moderate deficits, outside of war
1981-1992: Republicans skyrocket the debt
1993-2000: Democrat reduces the deficit every year and eliminates it
2001-2008: Republican skyrockets the deficit back up to very high levels

Historically, the government frowned on debt. In the liberal era from FDR to LBJ, Keynesian economics took hold and deficits were used as tools.

In 1981, the corrupt Republicans discovered the magic that having the public convinved you were a small spender, letting you politically get away with the benefits of huge borrowing to get money for all the nice little things you wanted, and we had Republicans talksing small and spending big while convincing the public Democrats were the big spenders. Neat trick until Clinton came along.

Blind partisanship is a phrase you have probably heard used about you quite a bit, but it's not for parroting towards anyone who has corrected your errors, like a child.

For what it's worth, Dems are far from perfect. They're just far better than Republicans.

I don't tend to talk to people who are both ignorant and loudmouths. Do better if you want a response to another post.

Why do you continually cling to this erroneous belief that Presidents pass the budget, when it's clearly the work of Congress? The Constitution says so, and yet you continue to lie about it.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Raising Taxes is a key part of Deficit elimination.

The other key part is lowering spending. Which one is more beneficial to the avg person and the economy?

Sadly neither party is interested in giving up control of the money we make and are forced at the barrel of a gun to send them.

 

[ScottMac]

Originally posted by: Phynaz
Why is it every time a Democratic political candidate opens his or her mouth the first thing out of it is talk of raising taxes?

Chicago, Cook County, Illinois.

10.25 - 11.25% Sales Taxes, so the Strogers, Daleys, and Blogo's can hire all their friends and family to do nothing.

Six communities want to switch and move to Lake county from Cook County because Cook is such a blood-sucking pit of corruption.

OH, by the way, BHO endorses and supports all of 'em, including the worst of the bunch: Todd Stroger, an amazingly stupid person, even for a politician.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Phynaz
Why is it every time a Democratic political candidate opens his or her mouth the first thing out of it is talk of raising taxes?

Why are you voting for the Republicans who have shot up our spending so that we have to raise taxes to pay off the debt, instead of the budget balancing party?

Ahh, ignorance of history. Wonderful. Well done Craig. Theres that blind partisanship shining through. "MY party doesnt spend..."

Uh huh.

Your attack of 'ignorance of history' could serve a purpose if you backed it up with facts and substance, but you can't, leaving you look like the loudmouth you are.

Let's consider history, in a very brief summary:

US History 1789 - 1980: small to moderate deficits, outside of war
1981-1992: Republicans skyrocket the debt
1993-2000: Democrat reduces the deficit every year and eliminates it
2001-2008: Republican skyrockets the deficit back up to very high levels

Historically, the government frowned on debt. In the liberal era from FDR to LBJ, Keynesian economics took hold and deficits were used as tools.

In 1981, the corrupt Republicans discovered the magic that having the public convinved you were a small spender, letting you politically get away with the benefits of huge borrowing to get money for all the nice little things you wanted, and we had Republicans talksing small and spending big while convincing the public Democrats were the big spenders. Neat trick until Clinton came along.

Blind partisanship is a phrase you have probably heard used about you quite a bit, but it's not for parroting towards anyone who has corrected your errors, like a child.

For what it's worth, Dems are far from perfect. They're just far better than Republicans.

I don't tend to talk to people who are both ignorant and loudmouths. Do better if you want a response to another post.

Let me Cliff that up for you.

Blah blah blah.
"YOUR party spends more, therefore MY party is obviously better"
blah blah blah

:disgust:

Tell ya what. Next month pay only half your utility bill. When they call to collect tell them "Well, at least I paiud part of it! Thats good enough!"

Your argument holds no water. As long as the debt is increasing we have a problem. Whether its at a moderate or high rate doesnt really matter. At some point we are going to be screwed. How you can even begin to support your party as the obviously better choice because they didnt run up debt as fast is beyond me......

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Vic
The Pubs have no intention of cutting spending. They haven't spent your great-great-great-grandchildren's tax cuts yet.

Based on percentage of budget the obvious plaace to start cutting is in social programs.
How well do you think that will go over?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: sandorski
Raising Taxes is a key part of Deficit elimination.

The other key part is lowering spending. Which one is more beneficial to the avg person and the economy?

Sadly neither party is interested in giving up control of the money we make and are forced at the barrel of a gun to send them.

Your not forced to send them anything. Get a job that pays less than a taxable income and shut your trap.

 

[Moonbeam]

Fresh Air from WHYY, January 3, 2008 · Investigative reporter David Cay Johnston explores in his new book how in recent years, government subsidies and new regulations have quietly funneled money from the poor and the middle class to the rich and politically connected.

Cay Johnston covers tax policy for The New York Times, where he won a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on that beat. His previous book, Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich ? and Cheat Everybody Else, was a best seller.

The new book, which expands the inquiry beyond tax policy into a whole range of regulatory machinery, is titled Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You With the Bill).

============

It's time to return the favor. We need to jump the curve on a progressive income tax before the poor have an allergic reaction to 'cake'.

We need to spend on infrastructure and education and research and developer new energy technologies to create working class jobs and middle class jobs with livable wages. We need to elect Obama and support him if he goes after the status quo. Only you can cause a revolution and he can't lead it without the support of the people.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234
1993-2000: Democrat reduces the deficit every year and eliminates it

Damn straight.

And we should give credit where credit is due. So, a big "thank you" to Microsoft, Intel, Dell, and the internet. We couldn't have done it with you! :beer: :thumbsup:

Ah, so let's thank Al Gore and the government for that investment.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
All we have to do to balance the budget is control spending. That was the lesson of the 90s that we seem to have forgotten.

From 1993 to 2000 the budget increased by a total of $500 billion a year.
From 2000 to 2008 it will have increased by over a $1 trillion a year. if we had limited that growth just a bit, say $700 billion, we would have had balanced budgets for almost the entire time.

Also, a lot of you like to argue that Obama's expected increases in spending are ok because they will be domestic spending. Well Bush has increased domestic spending by $700 billion a year!!!! With that kind of increase you would think you Democrats would be loving Bush.

Shall I buy a Corvette or send a kid to college?

If that's too deep for you there is a difference between blowing money out your ass and investing in the future. Bush is an ass blower and what Obama suggests in spending to strengthen and make new possibilities for future incomes.

 

[yuppiejr]

.. lets not miss the fact that congress, not the president, puts the budget together... He just gets to pass/veto whatever crosses his desk.

Lets at least be honest when we're looking at this - while Dems/Repubs are really only shades different in modern times as far as irresponsible spending goes it's a crock to simply say "while X party had the presidency spending was higher/lower/etc..".

 

[davestar]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Glad you asked
Huffington Post no less

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) plans to promise on Monday that he will balance the federal budget by the end of his first term by curbing wasteful spending and overhauling entitlement programs, including Social Security, his advisers told Politico.

So we have a clear choice.

Obama who has no plan to balance the budget or McCain who says he will balance it by the end of his term.

oh please. in the past few months, mccain has alternately said he doesn't care about balancing the budget, he will balance the budget by the end of his second term, and most recently, he'll balance the budget by the end of his first term.

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: Phynaz
Why is it every time a Democratic political candidate opens his or her mouth the first thing out of it is talk of raising taxes?

Because every time we have had a Republican in office recently they have lowered taxes and spent like there is no tomorrow driving us deeper into debt!

 

[ProfJohn]

Again you libs bash McCain and claim his plan won't work, but ignore the fact that Obama has NO plan.

So I ask, is a balanced budget important to you and if so who is more likely to do so?

Why don't you guys at least be honest and admit that his lack of a plan to balance the budget doesn't bother you. And that you really don't care if the budget is balanced as long as its a Democrat doing the deficit spending.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Vic
The Pubs have no intention of cutting spending. They haven't spent your great-great-great-grandchildren's tax cuts yet.

Based on percentage of budget the obvious plaace to start cutting is in social programs.
How well do you think that will go over?

With the Republicans? That won't go over well at all. Bush was, after all, the President who doubled the size and cost of Medicare.

Why do you guys actually believe that 'Republicans want small government' bullshit that right-wing radio sells? And then constantly apologize for them when the exact opposite occurs in real life?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Vic
The Pubs have no intention of cutting spending. They haven't spent your great-great-great-grandchildren's tax cuts yet.

Based on percentage of budget the obvious plaace to start cutting is in social programs.
How well do you think that will go over?

With the Republicans? That won't go over well at all. Bush was, after all, the President who doubled the size and cost of Medicare.

Why do you guys actually believe that 'Republicans want small government' bullshit that right-wing radio sells? And then constantly apologize for them when the exact opposite occurs in real life?

Exactly. If the Republicans actually acted in the manner in which they say, Ron Paul would probably be back in Texas delivering babies.

 

[blackangst1]

How come any time a thread questioning Republicans comes up, and someone says "yeah but look at the Democrats", most on this board snap back with accusations of deflection, yet when a thread comes up questioning Democrats, they do the same thing?

 

[ProfJohn]

Ron Paul didn't deliver babies, he read them the constitution and they crawled out looking for the freedom offered to them, get it right.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
How come any time a thread questioning Republicans comes up, and someone says "yeah but look at the Democrats", most on this board snap back with accusations of deflection, yet when a thread comes up questioning Democrats, they do the same thing?

and GOP supporters come in and decry deflection....just the same as the Dem supporters. There is no difference in either side when it comes to actions like this.