Record Numbers of People Paying No Income Tax

[quote name='Msut77']http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html?partner=rss&emc=rss[/QUOTE]

It’s true that raising taxes on the rich alone can’t come close to solving the long-term budget problem. The deficit is simply too big. But if taxes are not increased for the wealthy, the country will be left with two options.
It will have to raise taxes even more than it otherwise would on everybody else. Or it will have to find deep cuts in Medicare, Social Security, military spending and the other large (generally popular) federal programs.


From your own article. Now tell me if taxing the wealthy cannot come close to solving the budget problem, what other solutions have been put forth? Besides the taxing everyone more, and making deep cuts your article admits there is no other solutions.

So again if increasing taxes on the wealthy CANT COME CLOSE, to solving the budget problem, and you are against raising taxes on anyone else, and you are against making cuts how are we going to solve this problem?

How is that accounting for you? Its like you all want to bail out a boat with a bucket, not bothering to move the boat out from under a waterfall.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Your politicians actually do what you want? So when the majority of americans vote for Obama they are smart and right. However when the majority of Americans poll as not wanting this particular health care bill, they are being mislead, and to dumb to know what they are getting? Am I sensing a double standard?[/quote]
Or: perhaps the Republicans were wildly effective at controlling the message and creating fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Obama ran on many things, one of which was a reformation of health care. He then kicked the shit out of McCain at the ballot box. Should he then not implement his platform?
How about I flip it around. The majority of Americans voted for Obama, not realizing what they were going to get. (change can mean alot of different things), and they were against the health care bill because they knew what it included, and realized this isnt what they want.
Click to expand...
Yet Nate Silver, god of all things polling and statistics, says the bill is overwhelmingly popular when people are asked about the parts yet the bill polls negative when asked as a whole. If that doesn't illustrate the reality that people love the bill but got turned off by the Republican message, I don't know what will.
[quote name='Knoell']well when you squelch movements such as the tea party by calling them racist, and not worth the trouble what do you expect? if we stick with two parties of course we have to vote republican, they carry alot more of our beliefs than the other side does. You have to realize that the majority is not democrat or republican it is moderate. They do not want the government to run everything in our lives, and they do not want the government to disappear.[/quote]
The entire Republican platform right now is the screed of Grover Norquist. When they are willing to *GASP* negotiate, they will find a willing Democratic counter party. Until then they are marginalizing themselves, or rather, you are marginalizing yourself.
The tea party realizes the need for government, but also notices the excessive spending and waste of the government.
Click to expand...
If only there was a political process by which we could all negotiate on how best to handle that instead of demanding our way and throwing hissy fits.
http://docs.google.com/View?id=dhsxmzm7_19fcdzskg5
Click to expand...
For every tea party "platform", there's a huge segment saying no one else speaks for them. Find a voting bloc that'll actually vote it and is willing to negotiate and you'll find satisfaction. That's what we do in a republic. Problem is there's no negotiating with tea partiers. All of us are freedom apostates and must be wiped off the earth. We're the new red threat freedom terrorists that cannot be negotiated with under any circumstances.

Again, pardon us for not bowing to you.

Perfect example is the FinReg bill, a bill PEFECTLY SUITED to make tea partiers happy. Republicans want a bipartisan bill. Democrats ask how many votes they're willing to deliver if it is truly bipartisan. Republicans say zero, but they still want bipartisan. Children can understand how stupid that is.
But the Street thinks the Dodd bill goes way too far, and wants its Republican allies to water it down with more loopholes, studies, and regulatory discretion. Republicans figure they can accommodate the Street by refusing to give the Dems the votes they need unless the Dems agree to weaken the bill — while Republicans simultaneously tell the public they’re strengthening the bill and reducing the likelihood of future bailouts.

It’s a bizarre balancing act for the Republicans, reflecting the two opposing constituencies they have to appease — big business and Wall Street, on the one hand, and the emerging Tea Partiers, on the other. The Tea Partiers hate the Wall Street bailout as much as the left does.
Click to expand...
We're natural allies on this bill. So where is the pressure? Where is the voting bloc? Bueller? Bueller?
 
Define "come close" we don't have to literally eradicate the deficit I would settle for just putting a decent sized dent in it.

Just enforcing the current tax laws and shutting down loopholes or getting out of Iraq would do that let alone raising the marginal rates.

The deficit would also be reduced if the economy gets moving again (which might happen soon).

Now as for what speed was saying, your link was to a bunch of empty headed pablum.

Republicans get votes because they know what buttons to push for certain voters. So when a Republican gets voted in for wrapping themselves up in the American flag and carrying a gun while wearing a cowboy hat in their brand new spotless pick up truck, the person who voted for them buys into the fantasy and what they actually get is someone who is on a jihad against their social security.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Or: perhaps the Republicans were wildly effective at controlling the message and creating fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Obama ran on many things, one of which was a reformation of health care. He then kicked the shit out of McCain at the ballot box. Should he then not implement his platform?[/QUOTE]

He ran on "free" health care. So yes I would like "free" health care now please! Heres a video showing he actually didn't reform by the platform that he campaigned on. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4UZeHLxsvI
[quote name='speedracer']
Yet Nate Silver, god of all things polling and statistics, says the bill is overwhelmingly popular when people are asked about the parts yet the bill polls negative when asked as a whole. If that doesn't illustrate the reality that people love the bill but got turned off by the Republican message, I don't know what will. [/QUOTE]
Yes, that always is the case. If you like what something is made of, then you will definately like the finished product. Wrong. Someone once asked me if I liked, hamburger, Italian sausages, steak, chicken, white or red hots, a grilled cheese sandwich, fried fish, eggs, home fries, fries, beans, and mac salad. I thought about it and said yes each of those sound excellent. Then he showed me a garbage plate, http://rocwiki.org/Garbage_Plates and I almost threw up, then I heard the cost, and felt sick all over again.

[quote name='speedracer']
The entire Republican platform right now is the screed of Grover Norquist. When they are willing to *GASP* negotiate, they will find a willing Democratic counter party. Until then they are marginalizing themselves, or rather, you are marginalizing yourself. [/QUOTE]
They tried to negotiate, the democrat party was unwilling to negotiate very much at all. At one point a Republican asked Obama about tort reform, and Obama said "thats not what were here to deal with". I could be wrong but I thought we were here to deal with getting costs down.

[quote name='speedracer']
If only there was a political process by which we could all negotiate on how best to handle that instead of demanding our way and throwing hissy fits. [/QUOTE]
Since when is demanding fiscal responsibility a bad thing? and since when is our right to protest a hissy fit? You are falling into the very same category you place republicans in. A category in which anyone who disagrees with you is either not relavent, or just being difficult.


[quote name='speedracer']
For every tea party "platform", there's a huge segment saying no one else speaks for them. Find a voting bloc that'll actually vote it and is willing to negotiate and you'll find satisfaction. That's what we do in a republic. Problem is there's no negotiating with tea partiers. All of us are freedom apostates and must be wiped off the earth. We're the new red threat freedom terrorists that cannot be negotiated with under any circumstances. [/QUOTE]
You are walking a thin line here buddy. Come November when both republicans and democrats get booted out of office, and tea party candidates (republican and democrat) get elected, you will see that there is a voting bloc already. They support many candidates for this november.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Msut77']Define "come close" we don't have to literally eradicate the deficit I would settle for just putting a decent sized dent in it.

Just enforcing the current tax laws and shutting down loopholes or getting out of Iraq would do that let alone raising the marginal rates.

The deficit would also be reduced if the economy gets moving again (which might happen soon).

Now as for what speed was saying, your link was to a bunch of empty headed pablum.

Republicans get votes because they know what buttons to push for certain voters. So when a Republican gets voted in for wrapping themselves up in the American flag and carrying a gun while wearing a cowboy hat in their brand new spotless pick up truck, the person who voted for them buys into the fantasy and what they actually get is someone who is on a jihad against their social security.[/QUOTE]

Please submit some sort of proof of this knowledge you have of cutting the deficit by simply doing those things.

Secondly, you are clinically insane, you don't think that a poor person votes in democrats because democrats make promises of making life so much better for them? You are beyond saving my friend if you do not think that both parties manipulate people to gain votes....

Damn, You are getting worse and worse my friend.
 
[quote name='Knoell']He ran on "free" health care. So yes I would like "free" health care now please![/quote]
:roll:
Yes, that always is the case. If you like what something is made of, then you will definately like the finished product. Wrong. Someone once asked me if I liked, hamburger, Italian sausages, steak, chicken, white or red hots, a grilled cheese sandwich, fried fish, eggs, home fries, fries, beans, and mac salad. I thought about it and said yes each of those sound excellent. Then he showed me a garbage plate, http://rocwiki.org/Garbage_Plates and I almost threw up, then I heard the cost, and felt sick all over again.
Click to expand...
:roll:
They tried to negotiate, the democrat party was unwilling to negotiate very much at all. At one point a Republican asked Obama about tort reform, and Obama said "thats not what were here to deal with". I could be wrong but I thought we were here to deal with getting costs down.
Click to expand...
Republicans: We want tort reform.
Obama: If we give you tort reform, how many votes can you deliver?
Republicans: Zero.
Obama: :roll:
Since when is demanding fiscal responsibility a bad thing? and since when is our right to protest a hissy fit? You are falling into the very same category you place republicans in. A category in which anyone who disagrees with you is either not relavent, or just being difficult.
Click to expand...
You're arguing with Keynesians. It's absurd to expect everyone to see the world the same way you do.
You are walking a thin line here buddy. Come November when both republicans and democrats get booted out of office, and tea party candidates (republican and democrat) get elected, you will see that there is a voting bloc already. They support many candidates for this november.
Click to expand...
You can't deliver votes now but watch out buddy! Come November, you'll have a whole crop of candidates that you still can't deliver votes from because any agreement with Democrats violates the canon.

We look forward to your candidates refusing to work with us.
 
[quote name='speedracer']:roll:

:roll:

Republicans: We want tort reform.
Obama: If we give you tort reform, how many votes can you deliver?
Republicans: Zero.
Obama: :roll:

You're arguing with Keynesians. It's absurd to expect everyone to see the world the same way you do.

You can't deliver votes now but watch out buddy! Come November, you'll have a whole crop of candidates that you still can't deliver votes from because any agreement with Democrats violates the canon.

We look forward to your candidates refusing to work with us.[/QUOTE]

Nice arguements :roll:, you can tell quality by all the emoticons...
I edited in a video I thought you should watch.

Also when exactly did ANY type of tort reform get put into the bill? or even talked about? I am not seeing where tort reform was even debated. The democrats are not the king of all, they can't just say "hey we will think about tort reform, how many votes will you give us then?" How will they know unless they talk about it?
And how exactly can the tea party deliver on votes now? maybe in primaries I guess, but Im still not seeing how I am avoiding any particular defeat prior to november?
 
[quote name='Knoell']Please submit some sort of proof of this knowledge you have of cutting the deficit by simply doing those things.[/QUOTE]

Just enforcing the current tax laws and shutting down loopholes or getting out of Iraq would do that let alone raising the marginal rates.

1. and 2. http://blacktalkradio.ning.com/profiles/blogs/irs-tracks-down-tax-cheats

3. Not spending $700 billion on Iraq and Afghanistan would obviously lower the deficit.

4. As speed pulls his hair out over, raising marginal tax rates has no effect. Raising effective tax rates does.
 
Dunno speed, knoell has claimed both Republicans and Democrats will be voted out, hedging your bets is one way of avoiding defeat. Although one doesn't pretend to be awesome at picking the ponies when you bet on every single horse.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Just enforcing the current tax laws and shutting down loopholes or getting out of Iraq would do that let alone raising the marginal rates.

1. and 2. http://blacktalkradio.ning.com/profiles/blogs/irs-tracks-down-tax-cheats

3. Not spending $700 billion on Iraq and Afghanistan would obviously lower the deficit.

4. As speed pulls his hair out over, raising marginal tax rates has no effect. Raising effective tax rates does.[/QUOTE]

First I am not seeing the proof that tax law enforcement would close the deficit, but I am not against doing that.

Secondly what period of time are you talking $700 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan? Last I heard it was $200 billion a year.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Dunno speed, knoell has claimed both Republicans and Democrats will be voted out, hedging your bets is one way of avoiding defeat. Although one doesn't pretend to be awesome at picking the ponies when you bet on every single horse.[/QUOTE]

yes in your mind there are only democrats and republicans. But in any normal persons mind there are candidates with qualifications, history, and skills. To put it simple enough for you, I am saying that congress will not have many incumbants coming back. How I am hedging my bet there you got me, but you are Msut so nothing you say makes much sense, as long as it sounds like ya got me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='speedracer']I think it's reasonable to split legislative agendas into two parts: social and economic. Tea partiers love to trumpet freedom and puppies and smaller government when talking economic, but let's be real here. This isn't a libertarian revolution. This is a kill government movement that's also ultra authoritarian on social issues. They aren't pro-legalization of any drugs or for the right of a woman to decide on abortion.

Meet the new conservative boss. Same as the old conservative boss. Only difference is ya'll can pretend to have nothing to do with the 8 years of explosive government growth under Bush.

[/QUOTE]

As is often pointed out, the tea party has no spokesperson so this is all conjecture, but I really haven't seen any social issues addressed by tea partiers. They seem almost entirely economic. Did I miss some big rally they organized on Abortion or gay marriage?

From where I sat, I saw the roots of the tea party forming with the first bailout package right at the end of Bush's regime. As much as you really want to believe the Tea Party is more anti-Obama than anti-economic or anti-government spending, the evidence just isn't there.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']As is often pointed out, the tea party has no spokesperson so this is all conjecture, but I really haven't seen any social issues addressed by tea partiers. They seem almost entirely economic. Did I miss some big rally they organized on Abortion or gay marriage?

From where I sat, I saw the roots of the tea party forming with the first bailout package right at the end of Bush's regime. As much as you really want to believe the Tea Party is more anti-Obama than anti-economic or anti-government spending, the evidence just isn't there.[/QUOTE]

Quick question, are tea partiers for getting us out of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? I'm at work so I can't really look it up right now. I would imagine that they would be since it would save us some cash.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']As is often pointed out, the tea party has no spokesperson so this is all conjecture, but I really haven't seen any social issues addressed by tea partiers. They seem almost entirely economic. Did I miss some big rally they organized on Abortion or gay marriage?

From where I sat, I saw the roots of the tea party forming with the first bailout package right at the end of Bush's regime. As much as you really want to believe the Tea Party is more anti-Obama than anti-economic or anti-government spending, the evidence just isn't there.[/QUOTE]

I've never seen anyone at any tea party that I've been too, or saw on the news, speak about social issues. It's never been about social issues.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Nice arguements :roll:, you can tell quality by all the emoticons...[/quote]
He didn't run on free health care and I don't care about your lunch. Those weren't arguments so I didn't respond to them as such.
Also when exactly did ANY type of tort reform get put into the bill? or even talked about? I am not seeing where tort reform was even debated. The democrats are not the king of all, they can't just say "hey we will think about tort reform, how many votes will you give us then?" How will they know unless they talk about it?
Click to expand...
"From the start, I sought out and supported ideas from Republicans. I even talked about an issue that has been a holy grail for a lot of you, which was tort reform, and said that I'd be willing to work together as part of a comprehensive package to deal with it." -President Obama

Votes pledged by Republicans to make it happen: 0.
And how exactly can the tea party deliver on votes now?
Click to expand...
That's sort of exactly the point. If a bloc cannot deliver even a single vote anywhere, then they de jure don't matter. When tea partiers can get a voting bloc together and are willing to negotiate and compromise to get things done, they'll have a willing liberal ear. Until then, you're asking the majority voting bloc (of which the tea party block openly despises) to not listen to the people that put them there, but instead to an offshoot of the opposition party that will never support them.

That's a loser to the point of absurdity.
[quote name='thrustbucket']As is often pointed out, the tea party has no spokesperson so this is all conjecture, but I really haven't seen any social issues addressed by tea partiers. They seem almost entirely economic. Did I miss some big rally they organized on Abortion or gay marriage?[/QUOTE]
Take a wild stab in the dark and ask yourself whether candidates will come down liberal or conservative on social issues.
[quote name='perdition(troy']I've never seen anyone at any tea party that I've been too, or saw on the news, speak about social issues. It's never been about social issues.[/QUOTE]
Right. Kind of de facto out there when your Bachmann, Palin, John Birchers, etc. are leading the media charge.
 
[quote name='docvinh']Quick question, are tea partiers for getting us out of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? I'm at work so I can't really look it up right now. I would imagine that they would be since it would save us some cash.[/QUOTE]

The tea crowd is for everything and nothing depending on how any particular member feels the day you ask them.

I would bet there is no significant number who want us out of Iraqistan because that is the kind of government budget buster they like, that and the medicare so many of them collect.
 
[quote name='Knoell']First I am not seeing the proof that tax law enforcement would close the deficit, but I am not against doing that.

Secondly what period of time are you talking $700 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan? Last I heard it was $200 billion a year.[/QUOTE]

http://static.globalissues.org/i/military/country-distribution-2008.png

country-distribution-2008.png

Here is the closest I can find for the moment. Otherwise, I'm wrong.
 
[quote name='Msut77']The tea crowd is for everything and nothing depending on how any particular member feels the day you ask them.

I would bet there is no significant number who want us out of Iraqistan because that is the kind of government budget buster they like, that and the medicare so many of them collect.[/QUOTE]

I am foreseeing me blocking you for your ridiculous unfounded remarks..."I don't really know if they are or not so let me make up what I think theyd do"
 
I wonder what that chart would look like if you broke it down via country. It seems unfair to group all of Europe together like that...

Also, I love that Russia is typically our big military counter part - only spending 10% of what we do.
 
[quote name='speedracer']He didn't run on free health care and I don't care about your lunch. Those weren't arguments so I didn't respond to them as such..[/QUOTE]

it was an analogy, I can name all the good parts of something and ask someone if they like them too, and I am sure I will get a overwhelmingly positive response. but when you include ALL the facts(that means not just the good ones), it tends to decline.

[quote name='speedracer']
"From the start, I sought out and supported ideas from Republicans. I even talked about an issue that has been a holy grail for a lot of you, which was tort reform, and said that I'd be willing to work together as part of a comprehensive package to deal with it." -President Obama

Votes pledged by Republicans to make it happen: 0..[/QUOTE]

If the President agreed working on tort reform was a admirable and good idea, and was willing to work on it. why did he need republican support? But besides that, if some work had actually been done on tort reform, I bet some of them would be a little more open. How can the Republicans pledge support for something they haven't created or been accepted by the democrats yet? seriously man think about it
[quote name='speedracer']
That's sort of exactly the point. If a bloc cannot deliver even a single vote anywhere, then they de jure don't matter. When tea partiers can get a voting bloc together and are willing to negotiate and compromise to get things done, they'll have a willing liberal ear. Until then, you're asking the majority voting bloc (of which the tea party block openly despises) to not listen to the people that put them there, but instead to an offshoot of the opposition party that will never support them..[/QUOTE]

What do you mean they cannot deliver a single vote anywhere? From my understanding they aren't running as their own party yet, well they are, but it won't say "tea party" on the ballot. They are throwing their support behind people they believe can be fiscally responsible all over the US.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I wonder what that chart would look like if you broke it down via country. It seems unfair to group all of Europe together like that...

Also, I love that Russia is typically our big military counter part - only spending 10% of what we do.[/QUOTE]

Those countries cover up alot of their spending, you really think Chinas closed government spends that little? or even let that organization take inventory?
 
[quote name='Knoell']Those countries cover up alot of their spending, you really think Chinas closed government spends that little? or even let that organization take inventory?[/QUOTE]

I don't think it's that far off. Russia and China don't seem to send a lot of troops around the world as police men. That costs a lot of money.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I wonder what that chart would look like if you broke it down via country. It seems unfair to group all of Europe together like that...

Also, I love that Russia is typically our big military counter part - only spending 10% of what we do.[/QUOTE]

Before somebody points it out, that graph is for all spending admitted to.

So, the occupation of Korea, Japan and Germany is included.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I don't think it's that far off. Russia and China don't seem to send a lot of troops around the world as police men. That costs a lot of money.[/QUOTE]

but they police their own people quite alot more than we do ours...that costs alot of money as well, especially when they take large precautions to make sure such things are not transperant.
 
[quote name='Knoell']but they police their own people quite alot more than we do ours...that costs alot of money as well, especially when they take large precautions to make sure such things are not transperant.[/QUOTE]

I'm *guessing*, but I'm going to say they probably don't include internal policing as part of their overall military spending anymore than we do. Could you imagine what our military budget would look like if state and local law enforcement was included in that total?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'm *guessing*, but I'm going to say they probably don't include internal policing as part of their overall military spending anymore than we do. Could you imagine what our military budget would look like if state and local law enforcement was included in that total?[/QUOTE]
true, true, but I wouldn't exactly call what they do law enforcement. To me it is their active military spying on their citizens. I would compare it more to our CIA, but on their own citizens. We definately include our CIA. Oh well thats a matter of opinion though. It can go either way. I bet we count homeland security in that budget.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I wonder what that chart would look like if you broke it down via country. It seems unfair to group all of Europe together like that...[/QUOTE]
NATO requires things that they don't wanna do individually so they lump together to make purchases. At least that's how it was when I was in 10 years ago. I think they think of military expenditure as a group decision within the NATO framework.
[quote name='Knoell']it was an analogy, I can name all the good parts of something and ask someone if they like them too, and I am sure I will get a overwhelmingly positive response. but when you include ALL the facts(that means not just the good ones), it tends to decline.[/quote]
Does that make any kind of sense?

Do you like A? Yes.
Do you like B? Yes.
Do you like A and B? No.

wutwut
If the President agreed working on tort reform was a admirable and good idea, and was willing to work on it. why did he need republican support?
Click to expand...
Welcome to American politics. You must be new here.
But besides that, if some work had actually been done on tort reform, I bet some of them would be a little more open. How can the Republicans pledge support for something they haven't created or been accepted by the democrats yet? seriously man think about it
Click to expand...
You want the majority party to write a bill that will make the minority party happy BEFORE the minority party will pledge to support it? I'm sorry man, that's not how our system has ever worked for even a second. Tip and King Ronnie got a bunch of shit done by negotiating and delivering votes. That's how we do it.
What do you mean they cannot deliver a single vote anywhere? From my understanding they aren't running as their own party yet, well they are, but it won't say "tea party" on the ballot. They are throwing their support behind people they believe can be fiscally responsible all over the US.
Click to expand...
Right. So we can establish two things.

1. They have zero legislative power.
2. They are proxies for the minority party.

So why would the majority party entertain them again? Is any of this making sense to you?
 
[quote name='Knoell']Those countries cover up alot of their spending, you really think Chinas closed government spends that little? or even let that organization take inventory?[/QUOTE]

It's cheap to make knockoff tanks and guns.;)
 
[quote name='Knoell']Yes, that always is the case. If you like what something is made of, then you will definately like the finished product. Wrong. Someone once asked me if I liked, hamburger, Italian sausages, steak, chicken, white or red hots, a grilled cheese sandwich, fried fish, eggs, home fries, fries, beans, and mac salad. I thought about it and said yes each of those sound excellent. Then he showed me a garbage plate, http://rocwiki.org/Garbage_Plates and I almost threw up, then I heard the cost, and felt sick all over again.[/QUOTE]

lawl. So what, you want them all individually? Good luck getting that passed. What is your solution if you like each of the individual elements?

And like I said before its clear that you're not opposing the substance of the bill. The things that it does. You object to how its paid for.

But its clear others are going further (like Beck) and saying no it was never about the substance of the bill, its the idea of paying for poor people. We don't like that. Not. One. Bit.
 
Sorry for double posting. But no one called out Knoell on it so I assume its ok.

[quote name='Msut77']The tea crowd is for everything and nothing depending on how any particular member feels the day you ask them.

I would bet there is no significant number who want us out of Iraqistan because that is the kind of government budget buster they like, that and the medicare so many of them collect.[/QUOTE]

Sorry Msut I don't think thats correct. Ron Paul at SRLC was chastizing the Iraq/Afghanistan wars and the idea of 'nation building' in general and was booed by the majority of the crowd. So they don't like that. Not. One. Bit.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Your politicians actually do what you want? So when the majority of americans vote for Obama they are smart and right. However when the majority of Americans poll as not wanting this particular health care bill, they are being mislead, and to dumb to know what they are getting? Am I sensing a double standard?[/quote]

Bush ran in 2000 on fiscal responsibility, compassionate conservatism, limited federal government, and transparency in government.

Obama ran on health care reform and a promise to end the wars and the Bush tax cuts.

We're not 100% satisfied by Obama, but how can you not understand how doing what you campaign on versus doing the 180-degree opposite of what you campaign on tends to elicit different levels of support for your candidate?

Of course, y'all didn't stop supporting Bush until 2008, so you're a bunch of poseurs anyway.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Sorry for double posting. But no one called out Knoell on it so I assume its ok.[/QUOTE]

I did just this morning, but there was a cookie error or some shit and I didn't feel like retyping it. So there. Remember, every time you double post god makes a kitten masturbate. Or something like that.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Bush ran in 2000 on fiscal responsibility, compassionate conservatism, limited federal government, and transparency in government.

Obama ran on health care reform and a promise to end the wars and the Bush tax cuts.

We're not 100% satisfied by Obama, but how can you not understand how doing what you campaign on versus doing the 180-degree opposite of what you campaign on tends to elicit different levels of support for your candidate?

Of course, y'all didn't stop supporting Bush until 2008, so you're a bunch of poseurs anyway.[/QUOTE]

What are you talking about? Im going to assume you just wanted to vent....
 
[quote name='Knoell']So let me get this straight:

Obviously the government should be more responsible with our money, however it hasn't been responsible, and we have huge debt, so the rich should have to pay down this huge debt, while the government increases its irresponsible spending.

And people call me racist, stupid, and that I hate poor people, when I scream and shout about fiscal responsibility....

This is not directly attacking you elprincipe, I just feel this is the way alot of people on this forum think, and it is just sad.[/QUOTE]

Where did I advocate increasing irresponsible spending? Please tell me. It would be pretty shocking to learn that, since if you ask the folks in this forum who have been here a lot longer than you have you'll find that I advocate government spending cuts more draconian than any of them.

1. The federal government is about 5-6 times too big right now. The historical level (before WWII) has been about 5% or less of GDP. Under Obama, we're headed for 30-40%. We're going the wrong direction and it's causing huge amounts of damage to our country.

2. We have a huge national debt. We have to pay down this debt. We need to cut spending dramatically and perhaps increase some taxes on the richest, since the government has helped them increase their wealth at the expense of the rest of the country, to get the debt under control.

3. We need entitlement reform badly.

4. After all these are settled and we have balanced budgets or are in surplus, we should be able to reduce taxes for everyone, especially the lower and middle classes.

We had a once-in-a-lifetime chance to do this relatively painlessly around the turn of the century and both parties blew it, especially the Republicans. It'll be much more painful, but cutting/taxing/paying down debt has to be done, or we will destroy the wealth of our country, our good credit, our economy and our good name.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Where did I advocate increasing irresponsible spending? Please tell me. It would be pretty shocking to learn that, since if you ask the folks in this forum who have been here a lot longer than you have you'll find that I advocate government spending cuts more draconian than any of them.[/quote]
He does this straw man thing.
3. We need entitlement reform badly.
Click to expand...
I think we could do it without serious entitlement reform. I think we could cut the holy living shit out of defense and nobody would notice.

Also, this:

story.jpg


I know 10 years is a political millenia, but the lower classes already put the cash in the kitty. The game plan is always the same.

Tax cut for rich.
Economy goes to shit.
Cut entitlements and/or raise taxes disproportionately on middle and lower class.
Economy rises.
Tax cut for rich.
 
Oh, and Keith Hennessey, a senior White House economic adviser to President Bush explains why so many less people are paying taxes now.
* In 1997 every “normal” married couple with two children that earned $24,000 or more (in today’s dollars) had to pay at least some income taxes. The top nonpayer threshold for a family of this size was just under $24,000. This means there were some four-person families with income just below $24,000 that owed no income taxes.
* In 1997 a Republican majority Congress and President Clinton enacted the Balanced Budget Act. At the insistence of Congressional Republicans, this law created a $400-per-child tax credit which began in 1998. This caused the top nonpayer threshold to jump more than $7,000, to about $31,300. Millions of families with kids with incomes between $24,000 and $31,300 were “taken off the rolls” because the child tax credit wiped out the small income tax liability they owed.
* As a result of the 1997 law, in 1999 the child tax credit automatically increased to $500 per child, and the threshold for a married family with two kids grew to $32,800 in today’s dollars.
* In 2001 President Bush and the Republican Congress enacted a major tax law that increased the child tax credit to $600. This law also introduced the 10% income tax bracket, which lowered by 5 percentage points the lowest income tax rate. The combination of these two tax changes raised the top nonpayer threshold to $38,700. That law further phased in over time increases in the child credit to $1,000 per child.
* The 2003 tax law enacted by President Bush and the Republican Congress accelerated the $1,000 per child amount to be effective immediately. This increased the threshold to $47,400 in 2003. That’s a huge jump. It was incredibly popular, and it helped create political impetus for the 2003 law which also accelerated rate reductions and cut capital gains and dividend rates.
* The 2008 stimulus (President Bush + Democratic majority Congress) included stimulus checks of $1,200 per married couple, plus another $300 per child. This increased the threshold to $56,700. This was a one-time increase, however, and the non-stimulus threshold for 2008 was about $44,500.
* In 2009 President Obama and a Democratic majority Congress increased this threshold to $51,400 with the new “making-work-pay” tax credit. This was enacted on near party-line votes. That threshold drops slightly to about $50,300 this year.
Click to expand...
 
What's the policy on news programs having on think-tank dudes to analyze stuff? FOX always has on Heritage/Cato dudes and let them spew the feces. I think NBC has on Brookings institute guys.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='speedracer']I think we could do it without serious entitlement reform. I think we could cut the holy living shit out of defense and nobody would notice.[/QUOTE]

Entitlements are just so much of the budget that it's very hard to do it without entitlement reform. I'll be upfront and also tell you that I support ending/privatizing Social Security for ideological reasons as well. And to get the kind of size-of-government reductions I would envision (20% of the current size, more or less) entitlement reform is absolutely required. But without some reform SS and Medicare are bankrupt in any case.

I fully agree that we spend way too much on the military. Lots of it is waste as well. We can't afford a global policeman presence anymore, and we can't afford to spend what we spend on the military ($700+ billion not including war supplementals).
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Where did I advocate increasing irresponsible spending? Please tell me. It would be pretty shocking to learn that, since if you ask the folks in this forum who have been here a lot longer than you have you'll find that I advocate government spending cuts more draconian than any of them.

1. The federal government is about 5-6 times too big right now. The historical level (before WWII) has been about 5% or less of GDP. Under Obama, we're headed for 30-40%. We're going the wrong direction and it's causing huge amounts of damage to our country.

2. We have a huge national debt. We have to pay down this debt. We need to cut spending dramatically and perhaps increase some taxes on the richest, since the government has helped them increase their wealth at the expense of the rest of the country, to get the debt under control.

3. We need entitlement reform badly.

4. After all these are settled and we have balanced budgets or are in surplus, we should be able to reduce taxes for everyone, especially the lower and middle classes.

We had a once-in-a-lifetime chance to do this relatively painlessly around the turn of the century and both parties blew it, especially the Republicans. It'll be much more painful, but cutting/taxing/paying down debt has to be done, or we will destroy the wealth of our country, our good credit, our economy and our good name.[/QUOTE]

This is why I said Im not specifically attacking you, I know you aren't for increased government spending but the majority on this forum are. I was trying to make a point as to the fact that the government wastes so much of our money, puts us into debt, then asks for more money, while increasing spending (via stimuli, bailouts, and entitlements).

I agree with your four points, and also agree that decreased military spending should be on the list. Although entitlements should be cut as well, we have to be sure that we help those who really need it, and also don't fall behind in protection of our country. There has to be a balance of spending, and 30-40% of gdp is not a balance.
 
I agree with all of your vague notions. You're right I am definitely for spending though. I just like spending, it's just awesome. I can't think of a better thing to do than spend money.
 
[quote name='Knoell']I was trying to make a point as to the fact that the government wastes so much of our money[/QUOTE]
Could you cite something that shows that a substantive part of our government is waste?
 
[quote name='speedracer']Could you cite something that shows that a substantive part of our government is waste?[/QUOTE]

http://www.billshrink.com/blog/5626/government-wastes/
http://www.dolans.com/article/65218/12-Ways-Our-Government-Wastes-YOUR-Money/?textpage=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/most-outrageous-government-waste/

I especially love the credit for an electric car that doesn't exist. Fact is the only car that does qualify for the credit is a golf cart. We are subsidizing golf carts...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107204574473724099542430.html
 
http://www.economist.com/world/united-states/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15908469

Parental income is a better predictor of a child’s future in America than in much of Europe, implying that social mobility is less powerful. Different groups of Americans have different levels of opportunity. Those born to the middle class have about an equal chance of moving up or down the income ladder, according to the Economic Mobility Project. But those born to black middle-class families are much more likely than their white counterparts to fall in rank. The children of the rich and poor, meanwhile, are less mobile than the middle class’s. More than 40% of those Americans born in the bottom quintile remain stuck there as adults.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Could you cite something that shows that a substantive part of our government is waste?[/QUOTE]

Are you arguing that the $500 billion in Medicare waste described by the Democrats during the health-care debate was a lie?

[quote name='SpazX']I agree with all of your vague notions. You're right I am definitely for spending though. I just like spending, it's just awesome. I can't think of a better thing to do than spend money.[/QUOTE]

It's easy to be against "spending" just as it's easy to be for "tax cuts." The problem is people aren't willing to go beyond the vague notions and accept that, no, they can't have their cake and eat it too. As an adult, I have to admit to being amazed and saddened by the Veruca Salt-esque attitude present in our country among a large number of citizens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top