or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › "6 Months Until the Largest Tax Hikes in History"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"6 Months Until the Largest Tax Hikes in History" - Page 2

post #41 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

What's happening now is unprecedented. There is essentially no conceivable way it could be worse.

Oh dear God. Please don't say that. Murphy's Law and all that.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #42 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

Arguments about Rep v. Dem are pointless.

The government (no matter who has been in "control") has been on a spending binge for decades... and it gets worse with every year.
The ONLY way to pay for it is to increase taxes AND decrease spending (an actual decrease, not just a reduction in the rate of increase... something politicians advertise as a decrease.)

I would have no problem with very high tax rates (for a limited time) if i believed the federal government at large would actually use it to pay off our debt and not just spread it around as pork. But because I don't feel "they" spend the tax money wisely, I don't see any point in giving them MORE.

Everyone has an opinion, and with matters like this, you've got a VOTE to make that opinion heard where it might matter.

Excellent post.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #43 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

I value your opinion here but as a U.S. citizen who had no part in the Government's fiscal incompetence causing this deficit I respectfully disagree with any tax increase that will force me to pay twice for the government's foolishness (once in high taxes and once again in deficit repayment). You are right as rain that we need to decrease spending but increasing taxes simply forces citizens to issue dual payments on the government's problem. Have them cut federal spending to pay for all; no way citizens should be forced to solve a problem the government itself originated. Our state is one in which fiscal soundness and balanced budgets are required; I demand no less from the federal apparatus. Taxing the citizenry is no way to repair federal mismanagement. btw... Want a fiscal pattern to follow here? See New Jersey Governor Chris Christie...

Well, how do you fix the tremendous debt without higher taxes in the short term? Fiscal responsibility is very important. Cut the pork now. But if that cut does not cover the debt, how do you propose to cover it?

The other thing to do is to have complete turnover in the government. Political office is not intended to be a career, nor should it be.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #44 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

The ONLY way to pay for it is to increase taxes AND decrease spending (an actual decrease, not just a reduction in the rate of increase... something politicians advertise as a decrease.)

I agree about the (real) decrease in spending. I disagree about raising taxes.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #45 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Well, how do you fix the tremendous debt without higher taxes in the short term?

Cut spending until you're in "surplus" and then all surplus goes to pay off debt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Cut the pork now. But if that cut does not cover the debt, how do you propose to cover it?

Keep cutting. It can be done. It won't be though. No one has the political will to do it.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #46 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Well, how do you fix the tremendous debt without higher taxes in the short term? Fiscal responsibility is very important. Cut the pork now. But if that cut does not cover the debt, how do you propose to cover it?

Any kind of roll back of the Bush tax cuts yielding tax increases will directly, severely, and negatively impact small business and that is where the government is getting their most of their income in revenue! Reduce that income (revenue) and the nation is bankrupt! Simple as that! As I said, what Gov. Christie is doing in NJ is EXACTLY what the fed gov't must do... wholesale cuts to government, RIFs on staff, end of all pork, end Iraq/Afghanistan effort now, eliminate key high $ weapon systems, etc. etc. etc. We have to do far more than simply "cutting the pork" as some would say; we have to sever the gravy train of federal government spending now. Moreover a Balanced Budget Amendment [with no exceptions - not even national security] is necessary to bring our fiscal picture to soundness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

The other thing to do is to have complete turnover in the government. Political office is not intended to be a career, nor should it be.

I agree but again turnover of politicians is not enough; we need to put politicians in Washington whose gut reflex is to cut rather than expand federal spending. Again, look at what NJ Governor is doing.
post #47 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

6 months until some really nice tax cuts for most people- http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxto...igh-income.cfm

I find myself somewhat split between Hands and SDW...and basically believng that the tax cuts are going through.

I realize that many conservatives are certain that Obama is going to shit-can his promises (as did Clinton). However, Clinton's priorites were different than is Obama's.

FIRST AND FOREMOST OBAMA DOES NOT REALLY CARE ABOUT THE LOOMING DEFICIT AS A FIRST PRIORITY, HE CARE's ABOUT HEALTHCARE/CAP AND TRADE/ETC. AND OTHER NEW COSTLY PROGRAMS AND HIS (AND HIS DEMOCRATIC SUPPORTERS) RE-ELECTION.

What my fellow conservatives and libertarians don't get is that the economic and fiscal health of the Republic is a much lower priority - regardless of what philosophy of taxation is thought to be best. Obama is using an old tactic to get his way (as I learned in my own public service) get as many debt programs passed and the politicians will HAVE to finance them later.

To a person who cared, his strategy would seem reckless. But actually is shrewd. If he only extends the middle and lowest class tax cuts, then he can keep a promise AND retain more Democrats in Congress. THEN they can pass lots of new programs after they return in 2011.

AND AFTER the agenda of massive new debt and entitlements is done, THEN Obama and the Democrats can roll back the extension and pass new rounds of tax increases...OR let the GOP deal with the crisis.

HERE IS MY PREDICTION: THE EXTENSION OF THE BUSH TAX CUTS, FOR MIDDLE INCOMISH AND LOWER WILL BE PASSED. ANY FAMILY WITH TWO WAGE EARNERS EARNING AN AVERAGE OF 125K EACH WILL FACE INCREASED TAXES IN EARNINGS AND DIVIDENDS
, AS WILL THOSE PAYING THE HEALTH REFORM TAX ON INVESTMENT INCOME.

IN 2011 MORE COSTLY PROGRAMS WILL BE PASSED (EG CAP AND TRADE) AND THEN THE GOVERNMENT WILL CRY 'CRISIS' AND OBAMA WILL ONLY THEN PUSH TO BALANCE THE BUDGET THROUGH MASSIVE NEW TAXES ON EVERY LEVEL (EXCEPT THE POOR AND LOWEST WORKING CLASS WHO WILL LIKELY GET MORE TAX REFUNDS).

Conservatives need to give this guy credit: he is the best grifter since FDR and LBJ.
post #48 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

Any kind of roll back of the Bush tax cuts yielding tax increases will directly, severely, and negatively impact small business and that is where the government is getting their most of their income in revenue! Reduce that income (revenue) and the nation is bankrupt! Simple as that! As I said, what Gov. Christie is doing in NJ is EXACTLY what the fed gov't must do... wholesale cuts to government, RIFs on staff, end of all pork, end Iraq/Afghanistan effort now, eliminate key high $ weapon systems, etc. etc. etc. We have to do far more than simply "cutting the pork" as some would say; we have to sever the gravy train of federal government spending now. Moreover a Balanced Budget Amendment [with no exceptions - not even national security] is necessary to bring our fiscal picture to soundness.



I agree but again turnover of politicians is not enough; we need to put politicians in Washington whose gut reflex is to cut rather than expand federal spending. Again, look at what NJ Governor is doing.

Absolutely. The problem is not only the politicians necessarily. It is the voters. We get what we vote for. And we are voting for more of the same over and over. Without the political will though, will the cuts ever be deep enough?
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #49 of 683
Yahoo.com

Those darn Canadians are so damn delusional. They keep electing conservatives who do the opposite of Obama and here they are adding jobs and hiking interest rates out of fear of an overheating economy.

They must be asinine, greedy, racist, ignorant liars to actually be adding jobs without adding government spending! These klansmen clearly just want to make Obama look bad. A Research 2000 poll full of dog whistle words showed they are all probably planning on committing violence soon.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #50 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Let me ask you this:

If the Republicans had the presidency and filibuster-proof majorities in the House and Senate would you support the Democrats in doing anything legally possible to stop the Republicans from ramming through whatever legislation they wanted? Would you consider the Democrats to be standing on principle in doing this?

It would depend on what the legislation was.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #51 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

It would depend on what the legislation was.

OK. Fair enough. So if you agree with the legislation it's okay to ram it through when you have the power and the opposition party is simply being obstructionist?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #52 of 683
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

6 months until some really nice tax cuts for most people- http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxto...igh-income.cfm

It will take an act of Congress to extend the Bush tax cuts. Right now, there is nothing in sight that indicates Congress will do that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

Arguments about Rep v. Dem are pointless.

The government (no matter who has been in "control") has been on a spending binge for decades... and it gets worse with every year.

True, though it's gotten exponentially worse in the past 18 months. $400B deficits sucked, but were pretty much sustainable, especially because the economy kept growing. 1.6 trillion dollar deficits are not sustainable for more than a few years.

Quote:
The ONLY way to pay for it is to increase taxes AND decrease spending (an actual decrease, not just a reduction in the rate of increase... something politicians advertise as a decrease.)

I would have no problem with very high tax rates (for a limited time) if i believed the federal government at large would actually use it to pay off our debt and not just spread it around as pork. But because I don't feel "they" spend the tax money wisely, I don't see any point in giving them MORE.

Everyone has an opinion, and with matters like this, you've got a VOTE to make that opinion heard where it might matter.

No, that's wrong-headed, zero-sum thinking. Raising taxes will simply depress the economy MORE. They will lead to less revenue, not more. The answer is to dramatically cut spending, and completely reform the tax code to unleash the power of the American free enterprise system. We can grow our way out, if we grow our way out through private industry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

OK. Fair enough. So if you agree with the legislation it's okay to ram it through when you have the power and the opposition party is simply being obstructionist?

Define "ram."
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #53 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Define "ram."

It is a vague and ambiguous term so the best I can do is to provide an example. The Healthcare bill recently passed might be considered, by reasonable person, to have been "rammed" through.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #54 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

It will take an act of Congress to extend the Bush tax cuts. Right now, there is nothing in sight that indicates Congress will do that.

The last budget didn't get a single repub vote, this one will come down to the dems too, now I believe set for 2011. The Blue Dogs will try to reduce the upper income levels tax rates, but broadly speaking Obama's proposal on these taxes will hold steady.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #55 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

The last budget didn't get a single repub vote, this one will come down to the dems too, now I believe set for 2011. The Blue Dogs will try to reduce the upper income levels tax rates, but broadly speaking Obama's proposal on these taxes will hold steady.

Apparently you haven't been keeping up because the next year's spending has been "deemed" into existence without a budget.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #56 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Apparently you haven't been keeping up because the next year's spending has been "deemed" into existence without a budget.

The 2010 budget, I believe, will be voted on in 2011, if that has changed fine. If you have a link I'd like to see it. Oh, and it happened late under Bush too.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #57 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

The 2010 budget, I believe, will be voted on in 2011,..

All American families have to set an annual budget; why are the Democrat babies so fearful of putting one together in Congress this year? Could it be that Pelosi and Reid have been lying their ass off all year long and their numbers don't add up?
post #58 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

All American families have to set an annual budget;

I'll bet that most actually don't. That could a partial explanation for our national dilemma.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

why are the Democrat babies so fearful of putting one together in Congress this year?

Well it is a new era of government openness and transparency and all that.

It is quite amazing how quickly the Democrats can make Americans regret having put them in control.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #59 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

All American families have to set an annual budget; why are the Democrat babies so fearful of putting one together in Congress this year? Could it be that Pelosi and Reid have been lying their ass off all year long and their numbers don't add up?

Or could it be that the dems are still discussing what the budget should be and don't have the votes to pass it as proposed yet. This isn't even that uncommon and applies to both repubs and dems pretty equally, I think. I do wonder though whether the administration is now more open to a more austere budget and is trying to figure out how to get it.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #60 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Or could it be that the dems are still discussing what the budget should be and don't have the votes to pass it as proposed yet. This isn't even that uncommon and applies to both repubs and dems pretty equally, I think. I do wonder though whether the administration is now more open to a more austere budget and is trying to figure out how to get it.

More specifically figuring out how to get it without actually trying to get it. Look, no one has the political will to tell the American people that the jig is up so they do everything they can to kick the can further down the road hoping the next poor smuck (or schmuks) sitting in office when it comes crashing down will get the blame. The problem this time is that we are far enough down the road and the Democrats, Obama in particular, put their foot on the accelerator that there might not be much more road to kick the can down.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #61 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

OK. Fair enough. So if you agree with the legislation it's okay to ram it through when you have the power and the opposition party is simply being obstructionist?

It's difficult enough to get good legislation passed. So if I agreed with it I think it's ok.

It's not like both parties haven't done this when they had the chance. What you are seeing now ( and I've said this before ) is a reaction to long periods of Republican rule. As I've stated before if you just look at the presidency they've had the Whitehouse for 20 out of the last 30 years. And my question again is if they're so good for the country how come things are so fucked up?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #62 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

It's difficult enough to get good legislation passed.

I know. Look hard hard it was to get bad legislation (ObamaCare) passed!


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

So if I agreed with it I think it's ok.

So your approval of the legislation determines whether or not something is being rammed through and whether or not the opposition party is standing on principle or merely being obstructionist?


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

It's not like both parties haven't done this when they had the chance.

Can to provide an example?


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

What you are seeing now ( and I've said this before ) is a reaction to long periods of Republican rule.

And just because you keep saying it doesn't make it so.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

As I've stated before if you just look at the presidency they've had the Whitehouse for 20 out of the last 30 years. And my question again is if they're so good for the country how come things are so fucked up?

First, I haven't claimed they are. You seem to assume I am claiming that. Second, I would pose this same question to you about the Democrats.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #63 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I know. Look hard hard it was to get bad legislation (ObamaCare) passed!




So your approval of the legislation determines whether or not something is being rammed through and whether or not the opposition party is standing on principle or merely being obstructionist?




Can to provide an example?




And just because you keep saying it doesn't make it so.




First, I haven't claimed they are. You seem to assume I am claiming that. Second, I would pose this same question to you about the Democrats.

Quote:
First, I haven't claimed they are. You seem to assume I am claiming that. Second, I would pose this same question to you about the [I]Democrats

You could but it would be kind of hollow. They've had the Whitehouse for about a third the time.

Quote:
And just because you keep saying it doesn't make it so.

And just because you don't agree with this doesn't make it not so.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #64 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You could but it would be kind of hollow. They've had the Whitehouse for about a third the time.

Yes, and look how much they've fucked up in that short amount of time!


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

And just because you don't agree with this doesn't make it not so.

Yes. I know that.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #65 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Yes, and look how much they've fucked up in that short amount of time!




Yes. I know that.

This :

Quote:
Yes, and look how much they've fucked up in that short amount of time!

doesn't make sense. We're talking the last 30 years here so don't try to deflect this by focusing on the last year and a half. Things were royaly fucke a long time before Obama took office. The Democrats have had less control over all for 30 years. One third the time. If the Republicans are a better alternitive ( as you've indicated in your posts ) how come things are so fucked up? We should be in really good shape if they're so on top of things. I'd like you to answer how this could be? That's a very uneven average and for long stretches they've held the other branches as well ( just like Democrats do now ).
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #66 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

This doesn't make sense. We're talking the last 30 years here so don't try to deflect this by focusing on the last year and a half. Things were royaly fucke a long time before Obama took office. The Democrats have had less control over all for 30 years. One third the time. If the Republicans are a better alternitive ( as you've indicated in your posts ) how come things are so fucked up? We should be in really good shape if they're so on top of things. I'd like you to answer how this could be? That's a very uneven average and for long stretches they've held the other branches as well ( just like Democrats do now ).

NIETHER party has an honest candidate available. In both cases the people running for office (be it president, senate, or house) are there for personal power and influence. None of them have the best interests of the United States in mind. They may tell themselves that they do, but their methods of running things (both parties) over the last 50 years clearly indicates that they could care less about the long-term consequences of their actions with regards to the United States as a sovereign nation. They simple want power and influence for themselves first, and for their party second, with the well-being of our nation as a distant third at best.
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #67 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

NIETHER party has an honest candidate available. In both cases the people running for office (be it president, senate, or house) are there for personal power and influence. None of them have the best interests of the United States in mind. They may tell themselves that they do, but their methods of running things (both parties) over the last 50 years clearly indicates that they could care less about the long-term consequences of their actions with regards to the United States as a sovereign nation. They simple want power and influence for themselves first, and for their party second, with the well-being of our nation as a distant third at best.

My question was for MJ and the posture he displays here. I'll get to you later.

However you have a better alternative? What are you comparing them to?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #68 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

We're talking the last 30 years here

Actually, we should be talking about the last 100 years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

so don't try to deflect this by focusing on the last year and a half.

So don't try to deflect this by focusing on the past 8 years (which has been your focus until this most recent post...and which is all you really have because if you want to deny the success of the Reagan years (and several years beyond) then you're simply a Denialist.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Things were royaly fucke a long time before Obama took office.

We certainly had problems, but Obama put his foot on the accelerator pedal.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

The Democrats have had less control over all for 30 years. One third the time. If the Republicans are a better alternitive ( as you've indicated in your posts ) how come things are so fucked up?

Actually I haven't.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #69 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Actually, we should be talking about the last 100 years.



So don't try to deflect this by focusing on the past 8 years (which has been your focus until this most recent post...and which is all you really have because if you want to deny the success of the Reagan years (and several years beyond) then you're simply a Denialist.)




We certainly had problems, but Obama put his foot on the accelerator pedal.




Actually I haven't.

The reason I focus on the last 8 years is for the I suppose the same reason you focus on Obama. The Bush years were the worst travesty of a President in the Whitehouse that I can imagine. Certainly the worst that I've seen in my 57 years.

And Reagan wasn't all that great. The was the S& L debacle due to his deregulation and several recessions dispite " The morning in America ". And where he just couldn't remember. Now before you start if he did have a mental condition during his presidency why didn't he say something? Should the president have Alzheimer's and stay in office?

I'll give you this however I liked him better than I liked Dubya.

However you really dodged the question ( again ). If they've had more control over the government in the last 30 ( which would be the most relevant to now ) years how come things are so bad? And shouldn't they take responsibility for that? I mean it's 2 to 1 ratio wise. That's a pretty big difference.

Quote:
Actually I haven't

A sample from another thread :

Quote:
Summary: Obama and the Democrats fucked up (well, they showed their true colors). Now a bunch of people want them out and are willing to spend a ton of money to make that happen.

Would you be willing to say the same thing about the Republican's?

It sounds like to me that someone doesn't have a real answer.



Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #70 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

The reason I focus on the last 8 years is for the I suppose the same reason you focus on Obama. The Bush years were the worst travesty of a President in the Whitehouse that I can imagine.

Until Obama.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Now before you start if he did have a mental condition during his presidency why didn't he say something? Should the president have Alzheimer's and stay in office?

How interesting (and surprising...not). You're starting to make unsubstantiated accusations and claims. Nice.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

However you really dodged the question ( again ). If they've had more control over the government in the last 30 ( which would be the most relevant to now ) years how come things are so bad? And shouldn't they take responsibility for that? I mean it's 2 to 1 ratio wise. That's a pretty big difference.

And you've once again let the point fly right over your head. You're so obsessed with D vs. R that you assume I am defending the Republicans (let alone Bush). You just don't get it.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #71 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Would you be willing to say the same thing about the Republican's?

Actually I think the Republicans (during the 2000's in particular) did fuck up. But I think Obama has already fucked up more.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #72 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Until Obama.




How interesting (and surprising...not). You're starting to make unsubstantiated accusations and claims. Nice.




And you've once again let the point fly right over your head. You're so obsessed with D vs. R that you assume I am defending the Republicans (let alone Bush). You just don't get it.

Quote:
Until Obama.

I don't share that view.

Quote:
How interesting (and surprising...not). You're starting to make unsubstantiated accusations and claims. Nice.

Even if he didn't have diagnosed Alzsheimer's at the time.

Quote:
Iran-Contra affair
Main articles: Iran-Contra affair, Reagan administration scandals, and Nicaragua v. United States

President Reagan receives the Tower Report in the Cabinet Room of the White House, 1987In 1986, a scandal shook the administration stemming from the use of proceeds from covert arms sales to Iran to fund the Contras in Nicaragua, which had been specifically outlawed by an act of Congress.[179] The Iran-Contra affair became the largest political scandal in the United States during the 1980s.[180] The International Court of Justice, whose jurisdiction to decide the case was disputed,[181] ruled that the U.S. had violated international law in Nicaragua due to its obligations not to intervene in the affairs of other states.[182]

President Reagan professed ignorance of the plot's existence. He appointed two Republicans and one Democrat (John Tower, Brent Scowcroft and Edmund Muskie, known as the "Tower Commission") to investigate the scandal. The commission could not find direct evidence that Reagan had prior knowledge of the program, but criticized him heavily for his disengagement from managing his staff, making the diversion of funds possible.[183] A separate report by Congress concluded that "If the president did not know what his national security advisers were doing, he should have."[183] Reagan's popularity declined from 67 percent to 46 percent in less than a week, the greatest and quickest decline ever for a president.[184] The scandal resulted in fourteen indictments within Reagan's staff, and eleven convictions.[185]
Many Central Americans criticize Reagan for his support of the Contras, calling him an anti-communist zealot, blinded to human rights abuses, while others say he "saved Central America".[186] Daniel Ortega, Sandinistan and current president of Nicaragua, said that he hoped God would forgive Reagan for his "dirty war against Nicaragua".[186] In 1986 the USA was found guilty by the International Court of Justice (World Court) of war crimes against Nicaragua.[187]

[edit] End of the Cold War

Less than 10 years after his presidency :

Quote:
Announcement and reaction
In August 1994, at the age of 83, Ronald Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease,[225] an incurable neurological disorder which destroys brain cells and ultimately causes death.[225][226] In November he informed the nation through a handwritten letter,[225] writing in part:

I have recently been told that I am one of the millions of Americans who will be afflicted with Alzheimer's Disease... At the moment I feel just fine. I intend to live the remainder of the years God gives me on this earth doing the things I have always done... I now begin the journey that will lead me into the sunset of my life. I know that for America there will always be a bright dawn ahead. Thank you, my friends. May God always bless you.[227]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan

Quote:
And you've once again let the point fly right over your head. You're so obsessed with D vs. R that you assume I am defending the Republicans (let alone Bush). You just don't get it

Still the question remains would you say the same for the Republicans or do you have a clear preference for them and given the history of the last 30 years and it's outcome why?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #73 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I don't share that view.

I know.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Even if he didn't have diagnosed Alzsheimer's at the time.



Less than 10 years after his presidency :



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan



Still the question remains would you say the same for the Republicans or do you have a clear preference for them and given the history of the last 30 years and it's outcome why?

And now you are trying to tap dance around your unsubstantiated accusation.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #74 of 683
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

It is a vague and ambiguous term so the best I can do is to provide an example. The Healthcare bill recently passed might be considered, by reasonable person, to have been "rammed" through.

Agreed, and it shouldn't be done by either party.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

The last budget didn't get a single repub vote, this one will come down to the dems too, now I believe set for 2011. The Blue Dogs will try to reduce the upper income levels tax rates, but broadly speaking Obama's proposal on these taxes will hold steady.

1. What supports the blue dog prediction?
2. Not if they don't include an extension of low and middle class cuts.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

This :



doesn't make sense. We're talking the last 30 years here so don't try to deflect this by focusing on the last year and a half. Things were royaly fucke a long time before Obama took office.

Hmm. Really...which things?

Quote:
The Democrats have had less control over all for 30 years. One third the time. If the Republicans are a better alternitive ( as you've indicated in your posts ) how come things are so fucked up? We should be in really good shape if they're so on top of things. I'd like you to answer how this could be? That's a very uneven average and for long stretches they've held the other branches as well ( just like Democrats do now ).

The Democrats controlled the house for 40 years, until 1994. The Republicans took over for 12 years. Hello?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

The reason I focus on the last 8 years is for the I suppose the same reason you focus on Obama. The Bush years were the worst travesty of a President in the Whitehouse that I can imagine. Certainly the worst that I've seen in my 57 years.

Why, because you say so? What was so terrible? The economy grew for most of the decade. Unemployment was low. We had no real terror attacks after 9/11. Deficits were manageable, if regrettable. Home ownership was up, as were values. What exactly makes his presidency a "travesty?"

Quote:

And Reagan wasn't all that great. The was the S& L debacle due to his deregulation and several recessions dispite " The morning in America ". And where he just couldn't remember. Now before you start if he did have a mental condition during his presidency why didn't he say something? Should the president have Alzheimer's and stay in office?

"Several recessions?" You are completely wrong. Reagan's polices got us out of the 1981 recession. Another didn't come along until 1991. Also, your "mental condition" question makes you sound like a 5 year old.

Quote:

I'll give you this however I liked him better than I liked Dubya.

Why?

Quote:

However you really dodged the question ( again ). If they've had more control over the government in the last 30 ( which would be the most relevant to now ) years how come things are so bad? And shouldn't they take responsibility for that? I mean it's 2 to 1 ratio wise. That's a pretty big difference.

A sample from another thread :



Would you be willing to say the same thing about the Republican's?

It sounds like to me that someone doesn't have a real answer.




So, that's how we determine responsibility....by adding up the number of years each party has been in control? We should ignore everything that was actually DONE, and just focus on the number of years? You can't be serious.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #75 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

My question was for MJ and the posture he displays here. I'll get to you later.

However you have a better alternative? What are you comparing them to?

I know you weren't questioning me, I just felt like posting a response.

My better alternative?:

1. Constitutional amendment requiring the federal government to have a balanced budget. NO DEFICIT SPENDING. If they don't have the money they can't spend it. Period.

2. Term limits. ONE term. Maybe make it one 6 year term for a president, one 4 year term for senators and house members (staggered so that not EVERYone gets replaced the same year.)
This would help to avoid the present situation where every president and house member takes re-election concerns into account every time they make a decision or voice an opinion. (It'd be much easier for them to actually cut spending if it didn't affect their getting re-elected.) If they're not concerned with re-election, MAYBE they would make decisions based on what is best for the nation long-term.


Do I actually see either of those things happening?... No. The elected reps won't make those changes because it would degrade their own personal power and influence.
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #76 of 683
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

I know you weren't questioning me, I just felt like posting a response.

My better alternative?:

1. Constitutional amendment requiring the federal government to have a balanced budget. NO DEFICIT SPENDING. If they don't have the money they can't spend it. Period.

2. Term limits. ONE term. Maybe make it one 6 year term for a president, one 4 year term for senators and house members (staggered so that not EVERYone gets replaced the same year.)
This would help to avoid the present situation where every president and house member takes re-election concerns into account every time they make a decision or voice an opinion. (It'd be much easier for them to actually cut spending if it didn't affect their getting re-elected.) If they're not concerned with re-election, MAYBE they would make decisions based on what is best for the nation long-term.


Do I actually see either of those things happening?... No. The elected reps won't make those changes because it would degrade their own personal power and influence.

Terms limits are a must, but since the President already has one, I don't see the need to change it. A balanced budget amendment would probably just lead to massively higher taxes. But if it did happen, there would have to be a way to deficit spend in case of national emergency.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #77 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Terms limits are a must, but since the President already has one, I don't see the need to change it. A balanced budget amendment would probably just lead to massively higher taxes. But if it did happen, there would have to be a way to deficit spend in case of national emergency.

A president's first term is nothing more than a campaign to win him a second term. Hence, he should only get one term... Again, make it 6 years if that seems appropriate.

A national emergency hardly requires deficit spending!! ... If more funds need to be allocated to something (perhaps a war?) then we'll just have to cut spending elsewhere (federal highway funding?) ... If the emergency isn't important enough to justify cutting some other spending, then perhaps its not really an emergency!

If a balanced budget leads to higher taxes, then so be it. If the populace doesn't like those taxes, then they will just have to tell their representatives that they want lower taxes... And that it's ok to cut some social programs to achieve that goal. ... If all the various and sundry programs we have are really that important, then we'll just have to be happy with those high tax rates!
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #78 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

A president's first term is nothing more than a campaign to win him a second term. Hence, he should only get one term... Again, make it 6 years if that seems appropriate.

A national emergency hardly requires deficit spending!! ... If more funds need to be allocated to something (perhaps a war?) then we'll just have to cut spending elsewhere (federal highway funding?) ... If the emergency isn't important enough to justify cutting some other spending, then perhaps its not really an emergency!

If a balanced budget leads to higher taxes, then so be it. If the populace doesn't like those taxes, then they will just have to tell their representatives that they want lower taxes... And that it's ok to cut some social programs to achieve that goal. ... If all the various and sundry programs we have are really that important, then we'll just have to be happy with those high tax rates!

Yes, yes and yes!

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #79 of 683
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

A president's first term is nothing more than a campaign to win him a second term. Hence, he should only get one term... Again, make it 6 years if that seems appropriate.

I understand. Not sure I agree. It's not a bad idea.

Quote:

A national emergency hardly requires deficit spending!! ... If more funds need to be allocated to something (perhaps a war?) then we'll just have to cut spending elsewhere (federal highway funding?) ... If the emergency isn't important enough to justify cutting some other spending, then perhaps its not really an emergency!

We disagree completely. I think you'd feel differently in a WWII scenario. We had to deficit spend. You can't just cut your way out of an emergency like that.

Quote:

If a balanced budget leads to higher taxes, then so be it. If the populace doesn't like those taxes, then they will just have to tell their representatives that they want lower taxes... And that it's ok to cut some social programs to achieve that goal. ... If all the various and sundry programs we have are really that important, then we'll just have to be happy with those high tax rates!

But taxes are not the problem. Spending is. Many Americans already pay at least 40% of their incomes to a state, federal or local agency. How much is enough? The problem is that social welfare spending MUST be cut, just as pork must be cut. Federal employees and agencies should be cut massively. Social Security needs to be funded differently, say with a national sales tax. Other than unemployment insurance, all social programs should be ability-based, not need-based. If you have the ability (mentally and physically) to work, you don't get welfare. Period. We should eliminate the entire IRS, and replace our personal tax system with a hybrid model...everyone above the poverty line pays 5% with no deductions. You then pay additionally based on income, at greatly reduced rates but with limited deductions. Reduce or eliminate cheating, administrative costs, etc.

It will never happen, but one can dream.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #80 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

But taxes are not the problem. Spending is. Many Americans already pay at least 40% of their incomes to a state, federal or local agency. How much is enough? The problem is that social welfare spending MUST be cut, just as pork must be cut. Federal employees and agencies should be cut massively. Social Security needs to be funded differently, say with a national sales tax. Other than unemployment insurance, all social programs should be ability-based, not need-based. If you have the ability (mentally and physically) to work, you don't get welfare. Period. We should eliminate the entire IRS, and replace our personal tax system with a hybrid model...everyone above the poverty line pays 5% with no deductions. You then pay additionally based on income, at greatly reduced rates but with limited deductions. Reduce or eliminate cheating, administrative costs, etc.

I completely agree with all of that. But... If those policies were implemented, then i could also get behind TEMPORARY high tax rates to accelerate the elimination of our national debt.

Imagine the good that could be done with all that money that is currently being used to pay interest on the national debt. (Or just let the citizenry keep it and determine for themselves how to "spread the wealth".) ... Either way that's a LOT of money that is doing NOTHING to help people or the economy in the current situation.
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › "6 Months Until the Largest Tax Hikes in History"