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

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

Excellent 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?

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

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


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


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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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 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.

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.

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?

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



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.

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.

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?

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.

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


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

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



Yes. I know that.

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.

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?

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.


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.

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.

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

I don't share that view.


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?

I know.



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

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.

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!

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.