Obama '08?

@georgeob1,

Quote:

The fact is budget deal you cited will cover almost 60 % of the "lost" revenue from the delayued tax increases and will do so without the adverse effects on the economy.

So.. in other words the cuts won't decrease the deficit at all. I thought the purpose of the cuts was to eliminate the deficit.

And then the tax cut will only make the deficit worse.

2 Replies

@parados,

If the GOP continues to cut taxes, it doesn't matter how much they reduce spending. They will never be happy "transferring wealth to the poor."

They would only be happy when they destroy all of our schools, infrastructure, and social services (including Medicare and social security), and cut their taxes to zero while supporting wars that our children and grandchildren will pay for.

Their goal is obvious; they don't want to pay any taxes. If they did, they wouldn't be so hellbent to transfer this growing deficit to our children.

Their greed is more important.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Why havent the dems produced a budget yet?
As far as I know, they never even came out with one at all.

0 Replies

The White House in fact issued a FY2012 budget on Feb. 14, mm. what do you think it is that the Republicans are trying to gut, with all their catastrophically short-sighted grandstanding?

0 Replies

Just the summary runs 216 pages--we're a big country, with a lot of people, and a lot of needs, and a lot of different groups all of which have an input on what they want the government to do, which the Tea Party doesn't seem to realize--the TP just want their own minority viewpoint to prevail, no one else's. That's ain't the way democracy is supposed to work.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/budget.pdf

0 Replies

There were a couple surveys done a year or two back. One asked whether or not government spending should be cut, and a majority said yes.
The other asked WHAT should be cut, i.e. "should defense spending be cut?" "hould saftey net, social security, spending be cut?", and so on (those aren't the exact wording, this was a year or two ago). And a majority said each category of spending should NOT be cut. So there were obviously shifting groups supporting each category of spending, but still a majority supported each. Which means that whatever you want cut, that is important to a majority of the country. What I don't like and think the government should stop, someone else regards as vital. The Republican cutters represent a minority of the country, elected in an off year in a lkow turnout election when their base was energised. They do not represent the country as a whole, and Democrats have the right, and indeed the duty, to oppose them with full force and vigor.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

As a totally frivolous aside, Mjack, a CNN poll taken last week asked about federal funding for NPR/PBS.
What % of the budget went there? 5% was the average answer, which would amount to $178Bn.
Damn. I gave $100 bucks and all I got was a lousy coffee mug and I don't drink coffee.

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

rjb, Be creative; drink beer with it.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
The fact is budget deal you cited will cover almost 60 % of the "lost" revenue from the delayued tax increases and will do so without the adverse effects on the economy.

So.. in other words the cuts won't decrease the deficit at all. I thought the purpose of the cuts was to eliminate the deficit.

And then the tax cut will only make the deficit worse.

More deceptive wordplay from the chief quibbler.

The "tax cuts" weren't tax cuts at all. They were instead a delay in scheduled tax rate increases. They hold tax rates at their current levels - not a bad idea delaying tax increases during a very serious economic downturn with unusually sustained high unemployment and sustained very low levels of economic investments by businesses. They very likely will stimulate new economic activity and thereby raise government tax revenues. If we could get the Administration to relax its growing and misguided regulatory stranglehold on vast areas of the economy we would see even more investment and job growth and thereby some serious deficit reduction.

My point here, and the one that you are evading, is that the recent budget cuts which you and other Democrat apologists have called trivial, are of the same order of magnitude of "tax crts (i.e. delayed increases) which you have labelled as crippling. POM inadvertantly gave the lie to the propaganda you ceasely spew forth.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Wow...
Your argument is that they aren't tax cuts but just a delay in tax increases? And then you accuse me of niggling?

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

More deceptive wordplay from the chief quibbler.

The "tax cuts" weren't tax cuts at all. They were instead a delay in scheduled tax rate increases.

Where is all that money? Many major corporations are sitting on a lot of cash. I assume from the action on Wall Street that many individuals are investing the money gained from "delayed tax rate increases" into the market.
Where is the job creation?

2 Replies

@realjohnboy,

rjb, That's since 2001 and 2002 when GW Bush initiated his tax cuts that was supposed to create jobs. Bush had the worst job creation record since Hoover.

Conservatives want to continue on with more tax cuts for the wealthy by cutting funding for our schools, infrastructure, Medicare, and social security. They will support wars, but that will be paid for by our children.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

ci, The top 5% income earners already pay 53.25% of the income taxes to support your government. What do you want anyway?

2 Replies

@okie,

You are using figures to lie here. The slant is so severe it is a wonder that your computer doesn't slide off your desk. You surely must be aware that you are not using those figures correctly.

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

realjohnboy wrote:

[Where is all that money? Many major corporations are sitting on a lot of cash. I assume from the action on Wall Street that many individuals are investing the money gained from "delayed tax rate increases" into the market.
Where is the job creation?

At least this is a serious question. In the first place unemployment is slowly decreasing; corporate investments, particularly in the high tech sector, are resuming; consumer sales are also rising slowly. It is still a very slow and delayed recovery, compared to past recessions, but it has begun.

For the rest, the widespread and deep intrusions into all aspects of our economy as a result of the government's financial reform legislation; new bank capital restrictions; EPA activism with respect to energy production and industrial policy; and the widespread prevailing uncertainty about the actions of government regulators in everything from broadcast industries to petroleum and gas production & transport have inhibited capital investments in many areas even in the face of obvious need and opportunity.

0 Replies

@okie,

It's not what I want; it's the simple fact that the top 10% owns 71% of the assets of this country, and they are more than capable to pay more in taxes - and to help reduce our deficit. That's not for my personal interest; it's for the interest of all Americans - including the wealthy.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Ive used this anology before but here it is again. A man who insures a $100,000 car pays much more than someone who insures a $10,000 car. why shouldent someone with $100,000,000 of income pay more taxes (insurance) than someone who has $30,000 of income. the guy with the 100 million gets more protection than the guy with 30 thousand.

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

POM, are you really this dense?

0 Replies

This is interesting.
The President is going to propose cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, along with changes to social security.

I thought it was only the evil repubs that wanted to cut Medicare and Medicaid, or any other social programs.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/11/obama-taxes-table-spending-plan/

Quote:

In a speech Wednesday, Mr. Obama will propose cuts to entitlement programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, and changes to Social Security, a discussion he has largely left to Democrats and Republicans in Congress. He also will call for tax increases for people making over $250,000 a year, a proposal contained in his 2012 budget, and changing parts of the tax code he thinks benefit the wealthy.

Here is a more in-depth report from the WSJ.

Quote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704366104576255282893680792.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

mm, I had the same reaction when I read/heard that Obama was considering cutting Medicare and Medicaid, and still wonder how much and how he's planning to cut these programs.

What has actually happened during the many decades of these programs, the government expanded it to people who never paid into them, and even the GW Bush's expansion wasn't funded when he grew the program during his watch.

I think it bears looking at, but not with an axe. The government can't continue to spend money it doesn't have. Unfunded mandates only creates more problems in other necessary areas of education and infrastructure upkeep and maintenance.

I'm going to wait and see how Obama plans to cut those unfunded mandates.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know