PDA

View Full Version : The Largest Tax Hike In US History



eg8r
03-27-2007, 10:09 AM
Thanks to the Democrats... http://budget.house.gov/republicans/press/2007/pr20070322b.pdf [ QUOTE ]
The Democrat budget reported Wednesday proposes the largest tax increase in U.S. history - $392.5 billion over 5 years - mainly to finance immense new spending through 2012. Although they try to insist otherwise, the figures in their budget assume these tax increases will occur automatically - and without them they cannot achieve a balanced budget, as they claim.<hr /></blockquote> I don't see anything in there about reducing current forcasted spending so this is more income redistribution without any control of their own spending. The only difference between this out of control spending and W's out-of-control spending is that W offered a tax cut and the Dems offered a tax increase. I know that I am not the first to mention this but why on Earth can't some of the self-described "intelligent" people see that if they would reduce actual spending (not referring to ONLY reducing forcasted/proposed spending) then there would be no need to increase taxes.

eg8r

wolfdancer
03-27-2007, 10:21 AM
Ed, "surely you can't be serious"?
It's not even worth pointing out the obvious......

Gayle in MD
03-27-2007, 10:38 AM
http://www3.capwiz.com/c-span/issues/bills/?start=1&amp;keys=Iraq&amp;chamber=H

The Facts... /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

eg8r
03-27-2007, 11:08 AM
Yes your site has real "facts" contrary to the US Government. What a laugher.

eg8r

wolfdancer
03-27-2007, 12:11 PM
I would think that even a moron would realise that you can't keep writing a blank check for Haliburton, and the other favored war profiteers; can't keep borrowing money from the Chinese; can't keep puttting off necessary repairs and updates to our own infrastructure.....while offering a phony tax cut to buy votes.
I hope Ed reads up on deficit finance....and maybe even deficit attention disorder....it's obvious he ain't been paying atention to the national debt.
I think John Gotti could have been endorsed by the Republicans, if he had promised a tax cut....

eg8r
03-27-2007, 12:29 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I would think that even a moron would realise that you can't keep writing a blank check for Haliburton, and the other favored war profiteers; can't keep borrowing money from the Chinese; can't keep puttting off necessary repairs and updates to our own infrastructure.....while offering a phony tax cut to buy votes.
<hr /></blockquote> You might want to re-read the post again and this time remove your head from your rear. All of this was mentioned without wasting all the hot air.

Phony tax cut...talk about a moron. I wonder what fool whispered in your ear when you decided to actually type that nonsense. Remember it is always best to leave people to "think" you don't know what you are talking about rather than opening your mouth and proving it.

eg8r

BRussell
03-27-2007, 12:34 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> The only difference between this out of control spending and W's out-of-control spending is that W offered a tax cut and the Dems offered a tax increase. <hr /></blockquote> So which is better? I don't agree with your premise that Ds and Rs are the same on this issue - I think the evidence is clear that Rs are worse on spending - but let's say they are the same. Which makes more sense, to cut taxes while increasing spending, or to raise taxes while increasing spending. Hint: One will lead to deficits (and therefore more spending in order to finance the debt).

BTW, this isn't a tax increase, it's just letting Bush's tax cuts expire. He wanted them passed as temporary, so now they're going away, just like he wanted. I don't believe there are any actual "tax increases" that are being voted on - they're just proposing to do nothing and let the old tax cuts expire. I don't see how that can be called a tax increase.

Gayle in MD
03-27-2007, 01:08 PM
Exactly right. Unfortunately, trying to explain that to someone who questions information from a Government link, provided by C-SPAN, is an exercise in futility. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

The interest, alone, which Republicans have created during Bush, and the Republican, spendaholic, M.O. of tax cuts, in the midst of outrageous spending, and borrowing, goes un-noticed by that nutty 30%. They don't question their leader, even when he is burying their children and grand-children in debt.

/ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

eg8r
03-27-2007, 02:37 PM
[ QUOTE ]
So which is better? I don't agree with your premise that Ds and Rs are the same on this issue - I think the evidence is clear that Rs are worse on spending - but let's say they are the same. Which makes more sense, to cut taxes while increasing spending, or to raise taxes while increasing spending. Hint: One will lead to deficits (and therefore more spending in order to finance the debt). <hr /></blockquote> To answer the question of which is better, I will be honest both are worse. The correct option is to reduce taxes while subsequently reducing current and all future spending. [ QUOTE ]
I don't agree with your premise that Ds and Rs are the same on this issue - I think the evidence is clear that Rs are worse on spending - but let's say they are the same. <hr /></blockquote> In response to the first part, I don't think the evidence is conclusive that Reps are worse spenders, outside of this war W is a big spender, but I don't think throughout history you are correct. The left are predominantly the big spenders. This is most evident in the social programs. They really enjoy spending other peoples money in vote buying schemes.

To answer the next question (started out like a question but there was no question mark) which might have been rhetorical because you have already made up your mind based on the current situation...Neither makes more sense, both are senseless. What makes most sense is to reduce the already overgrown government by reducing taxes and reducing spending. I am not really too interested in which is the better of a bad situation, I would like to be given a better option. The difference here is the Left could never offer the better option. Their MO will always include increasing taxes because the basis of their beliefs is that the rich can afford it and the poor need the money more.

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, this isn't a tax increase, it's just letting Bush's tax cuts expire. <hr /></blockquote> Semantics in tact you are correct. However if you look at the final number, answer this...Did the taxes increase? The answer is yes. Call it what you like, however if the Left does everything possible to reject the option of reducing future increases in tax then the end result is a tax increase.

[ QUOTE ]
He wanted them passed as temporary, so now they're going away, just like he wanted. <hr /></blockquote> I don't remember this. I do remember him fighting to get them permanant and the Dems saying NO WAY.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe there are any actual "tax increases" that are being voted on - they're just proposing to do nothing and let the old tax cuts expire. <hr /></blockquote> Once again, take a look at the final outcome, increased taxes. No matter how you get there, the end result is the same, higher taxes.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-27-2007, 03:33 PM
You are such a complete $&amp;^#*...You didn't even click on my link...
Those are direct links to the government /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif Unlike yours, which is a direct link to Republican Talking Points.

/ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Gayle in MD
03-27-2007, 03:37 PM
Part of the nutty 30%, Bah Bah Bah. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

eg8r
03-27-2007, 04:02 PM
And you call yourself a lady... /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-27-2007, 04:49 PM
Sixty People were killed in Iraq today

Two American troops lost their lives in Iraq today

78 american troops have lost their lives so far this month

Since the start of the U.S. Occupation of a Country that never attacked us here, and had no WMD's, nor any likelihood of acquiring them,

3,243 American Troops have died in Iraq

24,314 have been wounded

10,841 American Troops have been seriously wounded

Over 2000 of the wounded are double amputees.

[ QUOTE ]
Opportunities Lost Due to the Cost of the Iraq War

Iraq is a tragedy in terms of lives lost, taxpayers' dollars expended, American worldwide influence dissipated, and opportunities missed. Below are a few examples of the investments in America that have been forgone because of the financial cost of Iraq.

For the cost of slightly less than three days of the Iraq war, we could enroll the 100,000 Priority 8 veterans, offer long-term care to 2,300 veterans, and eliminate the 95,000 claim backlog for veteran's benefits ($885 million).


For the cost of four days of the Iraq war, we could ensure that all of the cargo carried in passenger airplanes is screened for explosives ($ 1 billion).


For the cost of fewer than six days of the war in Iraq, we could fund 6,000 additional border patrol agents so that the National Guard does not have to help secure our border ($1.4 billion).


For the cost of just seven days of the Iraq war, we could protect Americans from a nuclear device smuggled into our ports by funding equipment to screen all containers destined for the U.S. and staff to review all manifests at ports that ship directly to the United States ($1.67 billion).


For the cost of 15 days of the Iraq war, we could vaccinate every child in the United States against serious childhood diseases with all recommended vaccines ($4 billion).


For the cost of just 20 days of the Iraq war, we could help protect Americans from an attack similar to the London train bombings by better monitoring rail and transit systems and mitigating known vulnerabilities ($5.4 billion).


For the cost of just 24 days of the Iraq war, we could fund all of the remaining port security needs estimated by the Coast Guard ($6.4 billion).


For the cost of almost two months of the Iraq war, we could hire 460,000 teachers across America to lower average class sizes to 18 students ($15 billion).


For the cost of two months of the Iraq war, we could eliminate the backlog of repairs in our National Parks, National Forests, and wildlife refuges, as well as make needed repairs to all Indian schools ($16 billion).


For the cost of just over two months of the Iraq war, we could provide basic health insurance to every child in the U.S. currently lacking coverage ($17 billion).


For the cost of a little more than two months of the Iraq war, we could pay one year of tuition and fees at a four-year public university for the 3 million high school seniors who graduated this spring ($18 billion).


For the cost of less than two and a half months of the Iraq war, we could cover the annual cost of renewing America's wastewater infrastructure ($19.4 billion).


For the cost of roughly four months of the Iraq war, we could fight global warming and our dependence on foreign energy by restoring our investment in energy research and development to the level of the Carter Administration ($32 billion).


For the cost of just over 5 months of the Iraq war, we could help the 7 million Americans who are currently unemployed improve their job skills to find jobs in growth fields ($42 billion).


For the cost of just over 5 months of the Iraq war, we could provide a 20 percent pay raise to 3 million public school teachers ($43 billion).


For the cost of roughly five and a half months of the Iraq war, we could eliminate all Federal income taxes for people making $50,000 a year or less ($45 billion).


For the cost of nine months of the Iraq war, we could fund all of the communication interoperability and protective gear needs of our nation's first responders as estimated by the Council on Foreign Relations ($73 billion).


For the cost of twelve months of the Iraq war, we could pay the full 40 percent Federal share of the Individuals with Disabilities Act for six years, fulfilling a decades-old pledge of fiscal relief to local communities and improving educational opportunities for 6.9 million children with disabilities ($94 billion).
Source: Appropriations Committee Democrats, Rep. David Obey (D-WI), Ranking Member
<hr /></blockquote>

The violence in Iraq has not improved. fifty to sixty people are found tortured, and murdered every day in Baghdad.

Violence in Anbar province, and others, has increased.

Iraqis say they believe it is correct to kill our troops.

Our National Security Estimate shows that we have emboldened terrorist, increased terrorist numbers and attacks, lost allies, increased the number of people around the world who hate us, and lost our credibility since using false statements to justify the war in Iraq.

Alqaeda's leader, Osama bin Laden, is still free.

Democrats have voted in measures and money, to increase our safety here in our country.

To improve our safety in the transportation field, often targeted by terrorists.

To aid our farmers, devasted by natural disasters.

To improve and up-grade the medical assistance for our troops, their lodgings, and their care givers.

To increase aid for hungry children in our country.

And to implement other security measures put forth by the 9/11 commission.

This new emergency bill brings the Iraq war costs to 320 billion, of that, 8 to 10 billion is missing.

Can anyone here believe it is reasonable to complain from our comfortable homes about what we must pay in taxes?

Can anyone here believe that George Bush is a good president?

Is there anyone left in this country who thinks our people should continue to be slaughtered in the Iraqi Civil War?


Gayle in Md.

Qtec
03-27-2007, 09:03 PM
So you want to cut social programs to finance Halliburton, Exxon etc etc profits? ie GW has spent possibly trillions and now the poor have to pay!
Freeze military spending for 3 years and you can make a profit and have your tax cuts. Maybe even cut the nat Defict which costs billions just on interest.
How does that sound?
Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Qtec
03-27-2007, 09:07 PM
So you want to cut social programs to finance Halliburton, Exxon etc etc profits? ie GW has spent possibly trillions and now the poor have to pay!
Freeze military spending for 3 years and you can make a profit and have your tax cuts. Maybe even cut the nat Defict which costs billions just on interest.
How does that sound?
Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

cushioncrawler
03-28-2007, 01:21 AM
Not well known, the Roman Empire crumbled koz of their tax system, and koz of the silly things that ordinary Romans did to reduce taxes, ie declare themselves to be officially slaves, to turn good land to fallow, etc etc etc. madMaccus.

wolfdancer
03-28-2007, 01:38 AM
I watch Jeopardy,and I know the Question:
"The largest tax hike in history"
What follows the biggest deficit in history?
I can't understand how anyone can compare monies spent here on
anything, with monies thrown away on Iraq for nothing.
them missing Billions....I'd have rather seen the Dems passing out hundred dollar bills to our winos with that money, instead of the bribes and kickbacks of the Republicans....

DickLeonard
03-28-2007, 07:02 AM
Eg8r What did you expect once someone with a brain got control of the Gov. Only a fool goes to War while giving Tax breaks to his friends. The way to cut spending is to bring home all the troops from all over the world. Stop spending millions of dollars on defense procurements. No more 250 million dollar fighting jets. No more space program, what other Follies can we eliminate. Roll back that tax hike for the 3 percent. No more fema 30% of its hits are in the state of Florida. Let them get Insurance. Cut out the aid to snow belt LOL.####

DickLeonard
03-28-2007, 07:12 AM
Gayle my favorite Osama Bin Laden picture was taken by a unarmed drone flying by in Indonesia. The article said that now the defense dept were arming their drones. Strange how we haven't got another chance at him. He must go out at night now. ####

Gayle in MD
03-28-2007, 07:13 AM
Our National Debt, created by Bush's policies, is $8,841,089,074,666. George Bush has borrowed more from foriegn countries, than all the other 42 Presidents combined. Our Armed Forces have been decimated by his policies. 75% of our debt, was borrowed. Each living American is now $29,326.47. PAHLEEEZE, don't even attempt to blame Democrats, for your party's unprecedented National Debt. You'd better brace yourself for higher taxes yet, to pay for the out of control Republican Pork and spending for six years, unchecked and no veto from the President. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

got any ideas, brilliant, on how we're going to pay for it, without raising taxes? Any ideas how we're going to build our armed forces back up after Bush has destroyed them, without raising taxes?


SOS, republicans cut taxes to get votes from the dummies who don't know that the cuts have to be followed by tax raises to pay down all the debt Republicans run up when they have the majority!

Some things never change! but, fortunately for the Republicans, there's a sucker born every minute!

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
03-28-2007, 07:22 AM
I'd like to know when we're going to attack the country involved in 9/11, who, btw, is still supporting terrorism, and funding the insurgency, and al Qaeda, to this day... Saudi Arabia!

What is more disgusting than a half cocked, arrogant, incompetent cowboy, who is all hat, and no cattle?

He jumps in front of the mic, throwing out ultimatums to the Axis of Evil, and then they set off their nukes on the fourth of July! Guess this means another Rebonics term, unacceptable, translation, "Bush will look the other way."

Bush reminds me of the cocky little guy...you know the type, the drunk in the crowd that shoots off his big mouth, and then his buddy's all have to beat up the thugs he insulted, and drag his good for nothing ass home.

Gayle in Md.
No more cheer leaders in the White House!

Sid_Vicious
03-28-2007, 07:52 AM
TAP-TAP-TAP!

eg8r
03-28-2007, 11:10 AM
[ QUOTE ]
PAHLEEEZE, don't even attempt to blame Democrats, for your party's unprecedented National Debt. <hr /></blockquote> No one did. Our country has been in debt for over a century. Wake up and actually read the post instead of stuffing your head further up your rear every time you reply.

[ QUOTE ]
You'd better brace yourself for higher taxes yet <hr /></blockquote> There you go Einstein, that was the point of the thread. Taxes will be going higher if the Dems are in control.

[ QUOTE ]
got any ideas, brilliant, on how we're going to pay for it, <hr /></blockquote> Sure do and they have been posted here a million times. You might want to drag your head out of your rear and hit the search button.

[ QUOTE ]
Any ideas how we're going to build our armed forces back up after Bush has destroyed them, without raising taxes?
<hr /></blockquote> LOL, you must spend all night making this crap up. What a joke.

eg8r

eg8r
03-28-2007, 11:14 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Eg8r What did you expect once someone with a brain got control of the Gov. <hr /></blockquote> I sure hope the person is intelligent enough to know that taxes are already too high and they are burdening the middle class and driving them down. I hope the person is smart enough to figure out the government should not be in the business of welfare, healthcare, etc. Basically it would be nice if the person is intelligent, they will be smart enough to know that government is already too large and it would be best to limit it and allow it to get out of the way of progress. Don't worry though, you are against all of that, so I am guessing your interpretation of intelligent is probably poor also.

eg8r

eg8r
03-28-2007, 11:16 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Sunsara (I mean Gayle):</font><hr> I'd like to know when we're going to attack the country involved in 9/11, <hr /></blockquote> This is by far the dumbest thing ever posted on this website.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-28-2007, 11:45 AM
You can't pay off raging Republican deficits, and wage an incredibly expensive illegal, immoral, Republican war of choice, without raising taxes. Perhaps, instead of your school yard style insults, you might want to educate the rest of us on your non tax hike, voodoo economics for prying our way out of the massive Republican created debt we are facing, the worst ever.
/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

eg8r
03-28-2007, 11:49 AM
[ QUOTE ]
You can't pay off raging Republican deficits, and wage an incredibly expensive illegal, immoral, Republican war of choice, without raising taxes. Perhaps, instead of your school yard style insults, you might want to educate the rest of us on your non tax hike, voodoo economics for prying our way out of the massive Republican created debt we are facing, the worst ever. <hr /></blockquote> My ideas have been posted many times (something you never do), just pull your head out of your rear and do a little search. You might not remember a lot of it, because for quite a while you were childishly ignoring my posts. Because of your childish behaviour you are wanting me to repost those ideas. You are not worth the time so search for it, it should not take long at all.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-28-2007, 11:55 AM
Amazing how like your party you are, Ed. Can't answer the question, just say so, skip the lame excuses. You don't have an answer, so be a big boy and just admit it.

/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

wolfdancer
03-28-2007, 11:57 AM
Ed, it's gone way beyond mere partison politics. Besides the costs of this war, the outsourcing of our jobs, and the imbalance of trade.....we do have to change course.
The books don't balance...and since you want this **** war, and want these **** companies to make these ***** outrageous profits, at the cost of American lives....well, Ed....you're just going to have to pay your **** share of the costs....
After 6 years of Republican control, the debts just keep piling up, thousands more young American lives are lost, tens of thousands more are maimed...and the end result is a war-torn country, living in fear, while their hatred for the U.S. grows, and God knows how many new terrorists we have created by this il-advised Bush adventure.
I'm sure that the most level-headed Republicans, are sorry that this man, this self-styled demigod, came to power.
And speaking of Gods....if the Almighty wanted us to begin this war, as Bush has many believing.....he wouldn't have picked this incompetent,******(add your own expletives) to lead the charge.
The sins of this admin are exposed daily in the media. In their quest for absolute power and self-enrichment,they have placed the needs of this country behind their personal goals.

eg8r
03-28-2007, 12:55 PM
Hey wolf when you get back on the meds and calm down a little I will chat with you. Right now you sound like a raving lunatic who cannot put together a coherent sentence without some sort of asterisk.

eg8r

eg8r
03-28-2007, 01:01 PM
It is quite funny to see no one actually mention anything that is in this post. Who in their right mind could argue with the simple logic that there is no need to increase taxes if you reduce spending. I don't expect the Einstein-wannabe-Gayle to understand but some of you others I thought would use your heads for a second.

My post has nothing to do with W, the war, plame (who was non-issue) or anything else you want to say about W. Quit being foolish and actually respond to what was posted instead of what you think you might have read.

I left the subject of the post as the last sentence in hopes it would linger the longest and some of you would catch on. Mentioning what has already been spent is just plain stupid, I am trying to talk about moving forward. From this point on, why increase taxes when there are millions of places to reduce spending. This is simple math but some of you just don't want to use common sense, you only want to argue.

eg8r

eg8r
03-28-2007, 01:02 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Amazing how like your party you are, Ed. Can't answer the question, just say so, skip the lame excuses. You don't have an answer, so be a big boy and just admit it. <hr /></blockquote> Practice what you preach.

eg8r

BRussell
03-28-2007, 01:02 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> To answer the question of which is better, I will be honest both are worse. The correct option is to reduce taxes while subsequently reducing current and all future spending. <hr /></blockquote> That might be your preference, but in the meantime, we should at least keep taxes and spending in line. It's just common sense. I'd love to have a debate about the level of government spending, and our spending priorities. It would be good for our country to think about whether and how much we want to pay for things like universal health insurance, and wars and weapons, and all the rest of it. But we really can't do that when the debate is short-circuited by one party that says we can both cut taxes and raise spending without consequence.

[ QUOTE ]
In response to the first part, I don't think the evidence is conclusive that Reps are worse spenders, outside of this war W is a big spender, but I don't think throughout history you are correct. The left are predominantly the big spenders. This is most evident in the social programs. They really enjoy spending other peoples money in vote buying schemes.<hr /></blockquote> Well that stuff about "vote-buying" just sounds like empty rhetoric out of something like a Rush Limbaugh show to me. Yes, FDR created a lot of federal spending with programs like social security, and then LBJ did as well - both Democrats. But in the past 50 years I believe the data are clear that Republican governments spend more.

[ QUOTE ]
To answer the next question (started out like a question but there was no question mark) which might have been rhetorical because you have already made up your mind based on the current situation...Neither makes more sense, both are senseless. What makes most sense is to reduce the already overgrown government by reducing taxes and reducing spending. I am not really too interested in which is the better of a bad situation, I would like to be given a better option. The difference here is the Left could never offer the better option. Their MO will always include increasing taxes because the basis of their beliefs is that the rich can afford it and the poor need the money more.<hr /></blockquote> Check out this (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8137) from the ultra-conservative CATO Institute. They basically endorse Hillary Clinton for president because they hope she will be like her husband on fiscal and economic issues, and because they believe the Republicans are too wedded to Bush's terrible policies. For Cato, the actual evidence has overwhelmed the rhetoric and false perceptions of Ds and Rs. When will the same happen for you, eg8? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Semantics in tact you are correct. However if you look at the final number, answer this...Did the taxes increase? The answer is yes. Call it what you like, however if the Left does everything possible to reject the option of reducing future increases in tax then the end result is a tax increase.

Once again, take a look at the final outcome, increased taxes. No matter how you get there, the end result is the same, higher taxes.

eg8r
<hr /></blockquote> If the tax cuts expire, yes people's taxes will increase. So it is a tax increase. But my point is that it's not a tax increase that the Democrats are enacting. It's one that was built-in to the Republicans' tax cuts that they passed 4-6 years ago.

BTW, why did the Republicans make their tax cuts temporary? I have two possible answers, but I'm curious what you think. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

eg8r
03-28-2007, 01:11 PM
[ QUOTE ]
That might be your preference, but in the meantime, we should at least keep taxes and spending in line. It's just common sense. I'd love to have a debate about the level of government spending, and our spending priorities. it would be good for our country to think about things like universal health insurance, and wars and weapons, and all the rest of it. But we really can't do that when the debate is short-circuited by one party that says we can both cut taxes and raise spending without consequence.
<hr /></blockquote> I don't think there is a party that says we can cut taxes and raise spending. The only person that believes that is W. The party actually believes we should be cutting taxes and spending.

[ QUOTE ]
Check out this from the ultra-conservative CATO Institute. They basically endorse Hillary Clinton for president because they hope she will be like her husband on fiscal and economic issues, and because they believe the Republicans are too wedded to Bush's terrible policies. For Cato, the actual evidence has overwhelmed the rhetoric and false perceptions of Ds and Rs. When will the same happen for you, eg8? <hr /></blockquote> Can't say. My guess is that if we wait a little longer they might jump ship again, just like before.

[ QUOTE ]
If the tax cuts expire, yes people's taxes will increase. So it is a tax increase. But my point is that it's not a tax increase that the Democrats are enacting. <hr /></blockquote> This is a semantics issue. In the end, because of their actions our taxes will increase. Call it what you want, if they have their way the taxes will be increased under their watch.

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, why did the Republicans make their tax cuts temporary? <hr /></blockquote> I don't have any proof here without looking, so my guess is that they need to put in a timeline in order to get a positive vote. If the left can see the end in sight they might be willing to accept the tax cut for a little while so show bipartisanship. It is all a game politicians play.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-28-2007, 11:31 PM
I don't recall ever backing down from answering a question, Ed. You, OTOH, never answer questions, just sling mud.

Again, how does our country re-build our armed services, which Bush has destroyed, and pay down the massive debt he has created, with the help of his Republican blank check Congress, without raising taxes?

Don't you feel a bit ashamed to be whining about taxes, while our troops are giving their lives in a civil war, launched by a president that you voted for, twice???? And who is responsible for running up the biggest debt in history?

/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

eg8r
03-29-2007, 07:10 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Again, how does our country re-build our armed services, which Bush has destroyed, and pay down the massive debt he has created, with the help of his Republican blank check Congress, without raising taxes? <hr /></blockquote> Wow, talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. DO A SEARCH. It has been mentioned here a million times.

[ QUOTE ]
Don't you feel a bit ashamed to be whining about taxes, while our troops are giving their lives in a civil war, launched by a president that you voted for, twice???? <hr /></blockquote> No I do not. I do mourn the lives that are lost in the war in Iraq but that is not the only facet of my life.

[ QUOTE ]
And who is responsible for running up the biggest debt in history?
<hr /></blockquote> Hey Einstein, we have already discussed this.

eg8r

moblsv
03-29-2007, 07:23 AM
Have you noticed how they are already starting to blame the next Administration for the failed war, and the economic consequences of their failed policies?

One of the worst myths in politics is this idea that Conservatives are more fiscally responsible that Democrats. The historical facts just don't support it.

Running an economy on borrowed money just isn't sustainable.

I'll be thankful just to make it to 2008. The road to recovery, from this worst administration in history, will certainly have a few bumps along the way. Hopefully, the voters will have a long memory of this crisis and be more cognizant of their methods of deceit, allowing enough time to get our country back on track.

eg8r
03-29-2007, 09:30 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Have you noticed how they are already starting to blame the next Administration for the failed war, and the economic consequences of their failed policies? <hr /></blockquote> Any examples?

[ QUOTE ]
One of the worst myths in politics is this idea that Conservatives are more fiscally responsible that Democrats. <hr /></blockquote> One of the myths here is that you know what you are talking about. Cons are more fiscally responsible, the group that cannot totally declare this are the Reps. Cons can be either Republican or Democrat so you are a little mixed up.

[ QUOTE ]
Running an economy on borrowed money just isn't sustainable. <hr /></blockquote> While it is not the best possible solution, it is the most popular of all countries, individuals, corporations, etc. There are very very few examples (where compared to the entire population) of any person/entity/government that runs completely on their own money.

At this point however, the US is already in a dangerous position. If we continue in the same manner it will only get worse. Hence, the need to quit spending and reduce already budgeted expenses.

eg8r

wolfdancer
03-29-2007, 11:55 AM
If I were a religious man, I would be praying for you.
I think you believe yourself to be so smart, so superior to others, that you now can't accept that you have been decieved, and mislead, by this admin. BUT,The only thing they have ever done for you, was to buy your vote for that 30 pieces of silver....which has now turned into thousands of dollars worth of debt....
"Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise." 1 Corinthians 3:18

pooltchr
03-29-2007, 05:25 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>
Again, how does our country re-build our armed services, and pay down the massive debt without raising taxes?

<hr /></blockquote>
After deleting the editorial comments, I actually found the question in your post.

If you owe more on your bills than you have income, what do you do? Do you tell your boss you need more money? No, you start finding ways to spend less money. That is how any responsible person handles this situation.
What we need to do is elect people to office who understand that concept. Spend less money! Don't just take more from the taxpayers. Start looking for those costly things that aren't really necessary.
It's not rocket science. You have to prioritize your personal spending, as do I, Ed, and everyone else. When our elected officials understand that the government needs to abide by the same rules, things will get better.
Raising taxes is NOT the answer. Cutting Spending IS!!!

Steve

Qtec
03-30-2007, 03:30 AM
What are you going to cut?

Q

Gayle in MD
03-30-2007, 08:03 AM
[ QUOTE ]
After deleting the editorial comments, I actually found the question in your post. Is it possible your you to correspond without the insults?

If you owe more on your bills than you have income, what do you do? Do you tell your boss you need more money? No, you start finding ways to spend less money. That is how any responsible person handles this situation.

<font color="red">I don't agree with that at all. One can't begin to advance when interest on debt has them deeply burried in a hole, and it is compounding at the kind of rates our country faces. Any good financial advisor would advise, step one, get rid of the interest you pay out, IOW, pay off the debt. </font color>
What we need to do is elect people to office who understand that concept.

<font color="red">Right, Reagan left us in a mess. Bush left us in a mess, the Clinton administration left a surplus. He gets bashed for not building up weaponry, but, we didn't need it at the time he was in office. The more weapons that are built, the more wars must be fought to justify the weapons. We have enough weapons to blow up the world several times over. </font color>

Spend less money! Don't just take more from the taxpayers.

<font color="red">Cutting taxes, during war time, is idiocy! Borrowing trillions from potential enemies, also stupid. The interest on all this borrowing that Bush has done, is weakening our country. If we don't pay down this massive, unprecedented debt, we're in trouble. In life, it is always a matter of degree, under the conditions prevailing. China has been robbing us for years, and Bush has looked the other way, and allowed it to continue, as he borrows more and more, robbing Peter to pay Paul. The Democrats of recent years have inherited a bad economy, and big debts, every time they take over from a Republican Administration. Paying off the debt, and eliminating high interest payments, is the first step in strengthing a country, or a family. </font color>

Start looking for those costly things that aren't really necessary.

<font color="red">Yep, like un-necessary, pre-emptive war, and fighting other countries civil wars, and huge tax cuts for those who polute our environment, send our jobs out of the country, hire cheap illegal aliens who don't pay taxes, but take our welfare, and degrad our educational system, hide their money in Swiss banks and have fake corporate offices in the Bahamas, and own huge mansions, private jets, expensive gas guzzlers, and huge yachts. They SHOULD pay more than the rest. They use more resources than the rest.</font color>
It's not rocket science. You have to prioritize your personal spending, as do I, Ed, and everyone else.

<font color="red">I own three corporations, and have been in business for myself since I was twenty-six, and I have never minded paying taxes to live in the best country in the world. We have too many people who are willing to sell out our country, for their personal bottom line, regardless of how it affects our country, or the American Worker. The biggest cheaters, are the Corporate Conglomerates. </font color>

When our elected officials understand that the government needs to abide by the same rules, things will get better.
Raising taxes is NOT the answer. Cutting Spending IS!!!

<font color="red">Again, I refer you to the mess left everytime Republicans get into office, and cut taxes. High interest payments have ruined more people and Governments, than anything else. Interest, can work to the advantage in some cases, like building up a business, for example, or buying a home, but massive interest, helps no one, neither a country, or the individual...Americans are in trouble, because they spend, rather than invest, and save nothing. Most are burried in interest, just like our government. </font color>
<hr /></blockquote>

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
03-30-2007, 08:15 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Have you noticed how they are already starting to blame the next Administration for the failed war, and the economic consequences of their failed policies?

<font color="red">It's a hoot, isn't it? I've seen this happen over and over in my lifetime. The Republicans get in there, the rich get richer, the debt goes up, the economy gets the facade of doing well, then Democrats have to straighten out the mess they make, and try to save all the starving childrenm left over from the Republicans. I'm sick to death of REPUBLICANS!</font color>

One of the worst myths in politics is this idea that Conservatives are more fiscally responsible that Democrats. The historical facts just don't support it.

<font color="red">Very true, and a fact they try to deny. Notice how they will acknowledge the debt, without contributing it to Republicans! The only spending bill that Bush has vetoed is the one that will pull our troops out of an unwinnable slaughter, in a civil war, we have no business throwing away life and treasure in, for nothing! </font color>

Running an economy on borrowed money just isn't sustainable.
<font color="red">Tap tap tap, and then they talk about Rocket Science? Ha ha ha... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif </font color>
I'll be thankful just to make it to 2008. The road to recovery, from this worst administration in history, will certainly have a few bumps along the way. Hopefully, the voters will have a long memory of this crisis and be more cognizant of their methods of deceit, allowing enough time to get our country back on track.

<font color="red">All but the roughly 28 to 30 % of our illustrious nutty right, knows how to connect the dots. Their usually the same ones who think Valarie Plame wasn't covert, and the Bush didn't lie us into the war, and that if we don't keep on losing the Iraqi civil war, the terrorists will swim over here and kill all of us! WHATCHAGONNADOWITHEM? /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif </font color>

Love,

Gayle /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif


<hr /></blockquote>

eg8r
03-30-2007, 09:16 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I don't agree with that at all. One can't begin to advance when interest on debt has them deeply burried in a hole, and it is compounding at the kind of rates our country faces. <hr /></blockquote> Why is it always someone else's fault. Should those who offer credit eliminate interest?

[ QUOTE ]
Any good financial advisor would advise, step one, get rid of the interest you pay out, IOW, pay off the debt. <hr /></blockquote> If you listen to any good financial advisor they will also tell you to restrict your spending and definitely not increase it to the point at which you will be forced to ask for more help in paying off the debt. I think you understand that in real life, for the every day person, paying off debt is not properly done by spending more (something W has been doing) and seeking out more handouts (i.e. increased taxes).

[ QUOTE ]
Cutting taxes, during war time, is idiocy! <hr /></blockquote> Strawman with respect to the quote you took from Steve. We are now in a discussion about future changes needed to be made to pay off the debt. Steve was spot on when he said, "Spend less money". There are many sound solutions to paying off the debt and they don't all include increasing taxes.

[ QUOTE ]
The Democrats of recent years have inherited a bad economy, and big debts, every time they take over from a Republican Administration. <hr /></blockquote> Well the current Dems seem to have taken a great lesson from the Reps. With all the pork in this latest bill it appears they are in no way looking to balance anything.

[ QUOTE ]
They SHOULD pay more than the rest.
<hr /></blockquote> Certainly, why should anyone be able to keep their hard-earned money?

[ QUOTE ]
The biggest cheaters, are the Corporate Conglomerates.
<hr /></blockquote> The biggest cheaters are the IRS. They are the ones that send out the gigantic manual every year with all the tax code changes. The Corporations are only doing their job, pleasing their shareholders. If there is a loop hole or way out of a tax they take it, it is legal. I am sure you take advantages of every deduction you can. I am happy to say, I am no longer a business owner directly, shutting the s-corp down was definitely a great way to get out of paying some taxes.

[ QUOTE ]
Americans are in trouble, because they spend, rather than invest, and save nothing. Most are burried in interest, just like our government.
<hr /></blockquote> However, contrary to Government, in order for any of those Americans to get out of that trouble, they will need to reduce their spending and focus on paying off the debt because they have no one else from which to steal the money. While I don't feel I was ever in trouble (always could make payments) with my debt, my wife and I did decide to pay off all our debt and live a completely debt free life (no credit card balances), outside of major purchase like house or car. Well, 5 years and two children later, we are now completely credit card debt free. I have 2/3 of my house paid off and 3/4 of my car paid off. Other than that we owe no one. Not bad but it took 5 years of hard work. It can be done without getting any additional income and reducing spending.

eg8r