0
   

Here's a preview of the Democrats' economic policies.

 
 
Reply Wed 20 Dec, 2006 09:34 am
Watch Your Wallet
Think the Republicans were bad? Here's a preview of the Democrats' economic policies.

BY PETE DU PONT
Wednesday, December 20, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

Sixty-one percent of Americans believe President Bush is not doing a satisfactory job. And more than 70% think the Republican Congress has failed to perform its job satisfactorily.

The continuing war on terror is one reason, but so are congressional spending, earmark excesses, and the corruption of House Republicans DeLay, Ney, Cunningham and Foley. In the six years of this administration overall spending has risen by 49%, and nondefense discretionary spending has increased by an average of 7.7% a year. The number of congressional spending earmarks totaled 10,656 in fiscal 2004 (costing $23 billion), 13,997 in 2005 ($27 billion) and just under 10,000 this past fiscal year ($29 billion). The Republican Party has become the party of big government.

But political supporters will take only so much contrarianism, so in the November election disgusted Republican voters allowed--even helped--both houses of the Congress to be taken over by the Democratic Party.

So will the Democratic Congress be any better than the Republican Congress was? A look at half a dozen likely policy proposals makes clear the answer will probably be no:

• Tax Increases. From the liberal perspective the good news is that the major Bush tax cuts will expire in 2010. So if the Democrats simply do nothing, the tax rates on lower-income individuals will rise to 15% from 10% and on higher incomes to 39.6% from 35%. Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin says that tax increases are the only way to solve the nation's fiscal problems, so that will be the Democratic strategy.

• Spending Increases. The incoming House leadership says it will hold spending flat for the remainder of the current fiscal year. Perhaps, but for liberal Democrats spending increases are political no-brainers: appropriate more and expand the government to make the country better. And if the deficit grows, well, that's because of the Bush tax cuts, not the Democratic spending increases. Historically Democratic Congresses have outspent Republican ones, and it will surely happen again.

• Alternative Minimum Tax. A 1969 tax increase that was enacted to soak the rich is suddenly going to seriously soak the middle class. Some 3.5 million taxpayers paid the AMT this year. But unlike the regular tax, the AMT is not indexed to inflation, which means the number of taxpayers the AMT hits is expected to balloon--by some estimates to as many as 23 million in 2007. Less than 5% of families with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000 are now paying the AMT, but more than 80% may pay it in 2008. Almost no families with incomes of $50,000 to $100,000 pays the AMT today; but as many as 35% of such families will in 2008.

To eliminate these very unpopular AMT increases would cost about $750 billion over the next 10 years. What taxes the new Congress will raise to solve this dilemma is unclear, but either AMT or other taxes will have to rise.

• Protectionism. Almost as passionate a liberal idea as spending more money is abandoning free trade and returning to protectionism. The AFL-CIO wants to limit lower priced goods from being imported into America even though it gives people a wider variety of products to choose from.

The truth is that the export of goods and services from America accounted for 10.4% of our gross domestic product in 2005 and created more than five million jobs over the previous 10 years. Imports have been increasing American trade deficits over the last quarter century, but U.S. employment simultaneously rose from 99 million to 145 million people. So trade has not cost us jobs; in fact it brings jobs into America--foreign auto manufacturers building cars here being the best example. Nevertheless, the Democrats will start by refusing to renew the president's trade authority, which expires next year.

• Energy. One of the last acts of the current Republican Congress was to pass legislation permitting more oil and natural gas exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. It will lead to the production of about 1.3 billion barrels of oil and 5.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, two things America badly needs.

But that will be the end of progress, for the Democrats have a very different set of energy goals. First, no more offshore drilling, even though there are 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas on the Outer Continental Shelf--a 19-year supply at today's usage rate--and 102 billion barrels of oil in the OCS and Alaska. Next, Hillary Clinton's repeal of oil drilling tax deductions and another windfall profits tax on oil companies, just like Jimmy Carter's, which reduced domestic oil production between 3% and 6% and increased oil imports by about 10%.

No more nuclear power plants will be allowed either. We have 104 operating successfully--our cleanest source of energy. But liberals believe they need more regulation and are too risky.

• Social Security. Just 10 years from now Social Security benefits paid out will exceed taxes paid in, so something will have to be done to fix the system. Individually owned Social Security accounts would help by allowing workers to enjoy bigger returns. But Democrats are dead opposed to the idea of turning millions of Americans into owners of stocks and bonds, which will lead to the liberal solution of raising Social Security taxes and reducing benefits. The forthcoming plan will likely be to raise the cap on earnings subject to Social Security taxes ($97,500 in 2007). That would raise taxes on everyone earning more than this amount, especially the most productive wage earners. If the cap went up to $150,000, for example, it would mean a tax increase of $6,510 on a worker earning that amount.

With a closely divided Senate and a president with a veto pen, the 2007-08 Congress will be more about defining the principles of their party and winning the 2008 presidential election than making significant policy changes. But all of the above public policy ideas will be put forward in some form or another in order to energize the Democrats' liberal base and win the 2008 presidential election. And that will produce a fiery new Congress.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,014 • Replies: 25
No top replies

 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Dec, 2006 09:38 am
I find it notable that the US government grew LESS under Clinton than it did under any previous Republican administration. Clinton himself said "the era of big government is over". The Republicans have become a party in name only and they are awash in scandals and hypocrisy.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Dec, 2006 09:39 am
NickFun wrote:
I find it notable that the US government grew LESS under Clinton than it did under any previous Republican administration. Clinton himself said "the era of big government is over". The Republicans have become a party in name only and they are awash in scandals and hypocrisy.


Do try to stay focused. I realize it's hard for you to do, but at least make an effort.
0 Replies
 
Green Witch
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Dec, 2006 09:45 am
I don't want to get into a debate, but I really wonder what happened to the Republicans over the last 6 years. I don't know how they got sucked into the Bush agenda. I only hope that this experience will bring Republicans back to their roots as a party that questions how we spend our taxes, has a sense of fiscal responsibility and focuses on making this country a strong, independent nation that only goes where it is needed and wanted.

I don't know how any Republican can support that spoiled rich kids and his friends sitting in The White House today, playing war and spending our tax money like his daddy gave him a credit card with no limit.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Dec, 2006 09:48 am
Please remember that it is congress spending money, not the president.

Pork barrel spending will not decrease with a democratic congress and as the author has written above, we can expect a lot more of it.

The only hope is that Bush finally finds that veto pen he seems to have lost.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Dec, 2006 09:49 am
this post is a transparent attempt to smoke up the fact that McGentrixs hero is making a total dick out of himself on national tv at this very moment....of course, that's just my opinion.
0 Replies
 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Dec, 2006 09:50 am
Bush has simply created a deficit so huge that our great-grandchildren will still be paying it off. Spend more, tax less. McG you refuse to see the forest for the trees.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Dec, 2006 09:55 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
this post is a transparent attempt to smoke up the fact that McGentrixs hero is making a total dick out of himself on national tv at this very moment....of course, that's just my opinion.


Like I said, reading comprehension just isn't your thing.
0 Replies
 
Green Witch
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Dec, 2006 09:56 am
McGentrix wrote:
Please remember that it is congress spending money, not the president.


The biggest pork barrel program in our history is the war in Iraq and most of the Homeland Insecurity projects are a huge waste of cash and energy.

Pork like "bridges to no where" and "teapot museums" are a drop in the bucket compared to what Bush's congress has approved over the last 6 years. All parties do pork, but the biggest hog of all has been Bush and his oil buddies.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Dec, 2006 10:04 am
Green Witch wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Please remember that it is congress spending money, not the president.


The biggest pork barrel program in our history is the war in Iraq and most of the Homeland Insecurity projects are a huge waste of cash and energy.

Pork like "bridges to no where" and "teapot museums" are a drop in the bucket compared to what Bush's congress has approved over the last 6 years. All parties do pork, but the biggest hog of all has been Bush and his oil buddies.


strangely I read and comprehended that perfectly.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Dec, 2006 10:36 am
Re: Here's a preview of the Democrats' economic policies.
Great article, McG. Provides me plenty to work with.

McGentrix wrote:
Watch Your Wallet
Think the Republicans were bad? Here's a preview of the Democrats' economic policies.

BY PETE DU PONT
Wednesday, December 20, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

Sixty-one percent of Americans believe President Bush is not doing a satisfactory job. And more than 70% think the Republican Congress has failed to perform its job satisfactorily.

The continuing war on terror is one reason, but so are congressional spending, earmark excesses, and the corruption of House Republicans DeLay, Ney, Cunningham and Foley. In the six years of this administration overall spending has risen by 49%, and nondefense discretionary spending has increased by an average of 7.7% a year. The number of congressional spending earmarks totaled 10,656 in fiscal 2004 (costing $23 billion), 13,997 in 2005 ($27 billion) and just under 10,000 this past fiscal year ($29 billion). The Republican Party has become the party of big government.

But political supporters will take only so much contrarianism, so in the November election disgusted Republican voters allowed--even helped--both houses of the Congress to be taken over by the Democratic Party.

So will the Democratic Congress be any better than the Republican Congress was? A look at half a dozen likely policy proposals makes clear the answer will probably be no:


Of course, if you are a writer for the Opinion Journal (WSJ opinion page), you are undoubtedly a proponent of supply-side economics. Which is the biggest bullsh*t theory of economics which ever existed, and as recently explained to me by Thomas, is not taken seriously by any economist. So when they tell you things are going to be bad, it's usually a good indicator that they will in fact be good.

Quote:

• Tax Increases. From the liberal perspective the good news is that the major Bush tax cuts will expire in 2010. So if the Democrats simply do nothing, the tax rates on lower-income individuals will rise to 15% from 10% and on higher incomes to 39.6% from 35%. Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin says that tax increases are the only way to solve the nation's fiscal problems, so that will be the Democratic strategy.


That's right, we have a gigantic debt and a huge deficit as a country. And it needs to be addressed. So we are going to raise taxes quite a bit. I understand this might make you upset, reader, but it's known as 'paying your bills.' Something I doubt you scrimp on at home, yet nationally people seem to think doesn't matter. It does matter.

Quote:

• Spending Increases. The incoming House leadership says it will hold spending flat for the remainder of the current fiscal year. Perhaps, but for liberal Democrats spending increases are political no-brainers: appropriate more and expand the government to make the country better. And if the deficit grows, well, that's because of the Bush tax cuts, not the Democratic spending increases. Historically Democratic Congresses have outspent Republican ones, and it will surely happen again.


This is a false paragraph. It provides no real evidence that the Dems will increase spending this year, other then examinations of the historical record of Democrats.

I feel that this is misleading. If one had examined the well-accepted history of Republicans, one certainly would not have expected to see the gigantic increases in ALL areas of government spending over the last 6 years, but that's exactly what happened. One of the major platforms that the Dems ran on is fiscal sanity, so it seems likely that in order to keep their majorities in '08 (and to grab the WH) the Dems will have to exercise some restraint.

This is nothing more than a partisan assertion.

Quote:
• Alternative Minimum Tax. A 1969 tax increase that was enacted to soak the rich is suddenly going to seriously soak the middle class. Some 3.5 million taxpayers paid the AMT this year. But unlike the regular tax, the AMT is not indexed to inflation, which means the number of taxpayers the AMT hits is expected to balloon--by some estimates to as many as 23 million in 2007. Less than 5% of families with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000 are now paying the AMT, but more than 80% may pay it in 2008. Almost no families with incomes of $50,000 to $100,000 pays the AMT today; but as many as 35% of such families will in 2008.

To eliminate these very unpopular AMT increases would cost about $750 billion over the next 10 years. What taxes the new Congress will raise to solve this dilemma is unclear, but either AMT or other taxes will have to rise.


Index AMT to inflation. Problem solved. If we need additional taxed income, reinstate some of Bush's more esoteric tax cuts.

Quote:
• Protectionism. Almost as passionate a liberal idea as spending more money is abandoning free trade and returning to protectionism. The AFL-CIO wants to limit lower priced goods from being imported into America even though it gives people a wider variety of products to choose from.

The truth is that the export of goods and services from America accounted for 10.4% of our gross domestic product in 2005 and created more than five million jobs over the previous 10 years. Imports have been increasing American trade deficits over the last quarter century, but U.S. employment simultaneously rose from 99 million to 145 million people. So trade has not cost us jobs; in fact it brings jobs into America--foreign auto manufacturers building cars here being the best example. Nevertheless, the Democrats will start by refusing to renew the president's trade authority, which expires next year.


Absolutely. Even though the US hasn't lost jobs overall, we still have lost jobs in many industries which have been replaced with lower paying jobs.

This author completely ignores our disastrous trade imbalances, because, of course, he is a supply-sider. Ridiculously short-sighted.

Quote:
• Energy. One of the last acts of the current Republican Congress was to pass legislation permitting more oil and natural gas exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. It will lead to the production of about 1.3 billion barrels of oil and 5.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, two things America badly needs.

But that will be the end of progress, for the Democrats have a very different set of energy goals. First, no more offshore drilling, even though there are 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas on the Outer Continental Shelf--a 19-year supply at today's usage rate--and 102 billion barrels of oil in the OCS and Alaska. Next, Hillary Clinton's repeal of oil drilling tax deductions and another windfall profits tax on oil companies, just like Jimmy Carter's, which reduced domestic oil production between 3% and 6% and increased oil imports by about 10%.

No more nuclear power plants will be allowed either. We have 104 operating successfully--our cleanest source of energy. But liberals believe they need more regulation and are too risky.


I greatly doubt that the reduction of tax breaks to oil companies - companies which have been profiting double-digit billions per quarter these last few years - is what leads to a drop in domestic production. This is highly spurious logic.

I think we should be looking into increased nuclear power, but that's just me.

Quote:
• Social Security. Just 10 years from now Social Security benefits paid out will exceed taxes paid in, so something will have to be done to fix the system. Individually owned Social Security accounts would help by allowing workers to enjoy bigger returns. But Democrats are dead opposed to the idea of turning millions of Americans into owners of stocks and bonds, which will lead to the liberal solution of raising Social Security taxes and reducing benefits. The forthcoming plan will likely be to raise the cap on earnings subject to Social Security taxes ($97,500 in 2007). That would raise taxes on everyone earning more than this amount, especially the most productive wage earners. If the cap went up to $150,000, for example, it would mean a tax increase of $6,510 on a worker earning that amount.


Nope, no privatization of Social Security. The author states -

Quote:
. Individually owned Social Security accounts would help by allowing workers to enjoy bigger returns.


Except, there's no guarantee that anyone will enjoy bigger returns. By investing in markets which are volatile, many people will in fact enjoy smaller or no return on their money, and some will lose money. This is the nature of the beast that the Republicans don't want to talk about.

The author is correct that we will raise the cap on SS taxes. It is an excellent way to bring in additional revenues without adversely affecting those who are giving said revenues (and without treating them any differently than the average man). This will help greatly to close the loophole of giving larger and larger amounts of money to the executives in order to avoid paying SS taxes as well.

Quote:
With a closely divided Senate and a president with a veto pen, the 2007-08 Congress will be more about defining the principles of their party and winning the 2008 presidential election than making significant policy changes. But all of the above public policy ideas will be put forward in some form or another in order to energize the Democrats' liberal base and win the 2008 presidential election. And that will produce a fiery new Congress.


Um, yeah. I agree with this.

In total: the author is merely trying to find a way to justify the pro-rich policies of the Republicans. I'll try to send him a happy email every time one of these proposals is passed.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Dec, 2006 10:49 am
"We're in worse shape that we had previously believed"
Thos words were uttered in '93 after the middle class had been promised a tax cut during the campiagn in '92, not only did the middle class get a tax hike, but the dead were taxed as well, plus Al GoreDUM proposed a 50 cent gasoline tax, they got 5 cents.
Now, just the other day, after 'the middle class tax cut was promised during the campaign, the dems come out with, things (finances)are much worse than we had previously thought The first warning of, we are going to get in your wallet
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Dec, 2006 10:53 am
Green Witch wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Please remember that it is congress spending money, not the president.


The biggest pork barrel program in our history is the war in Iraq and most of the Homeland Insecurity projects are a huge waste of cash and energy.

Pork like "bridges to no where" and "teapot museums" are a drop in the bucket compared to what Bush's congress has approved over the last 6 years. All parties do pork, but the biggest hog of all has been Bush and his oil buddies.

Who do you think instigated & pushed for Homeland Security? I agree, it is a huge waste & the dems should be ashamed of their ineptness.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Dec, 2006 10:56 am
Green Witch wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Please remember that it is congress spending money, not the president.


The biggest pork barrel program in our history is the war in Iraq and most of the Homeland Insecurity projects are a huge waste of cash and energy.

Pork like "bridges to no where" and "teapot museums" are a drop in the bucket compared to what Bush's congress has approved over the last 6 years. All parties do pork, but the biggest hog of all has been Bush and his oil buddies.


And by "Bush's congress" you meant the legislature in place during Bush's tenure?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Dec, 2006 10:56 am
Thank you for taking the time to respond Cyc. I knew someone would make the effort.

Time for Christmas lunch at work. Woohoo! Free food!
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Dec, 2006 10:58 am
LoneStarMadam wrote:
"We're in worse shape that we had previously believed"
Thos words were uttered in '93 after the middle class had been promised a tax cut during the campiagn in '92, not only did the middle class get a tax hike, but the dead were taxed as well, plus Al GoreDUM proposed a 50 cent gasoline tax, they got 5 cents.
Now, just the other day, after 'the middle class tax cut was promised during the campaign, the dems come out with, things (finances)are much worse than we had previously thought The first warning of, we are going to get in your wallet


You're right on both counts:

This really are worse than you believe; if you don't follow the actual numbers, you'd be astounded how in debt we are.

And secondly, yes, we are all going to have to band together to pay for it.

Why is it that Republicans - traditionally known as the 'responsible' party when it comes to fiscal actions - believe we don't have to pay our bills when they come due?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Dec, 2006 11:05 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
"We're in worse shape that we had previously believed"
Thos words were uttered in '93 after the middle class had been promised a tax cut during the campiagn in '92, not only did the middle class get a tax hike, but the dead were taxed as well, plus Al GoreDUM proposed a 50 cent gasoline tax, they got 5 cents.
Now, just the other day, after 'the middle class tax cut was promised during the campaign, the dems come out with, things (finances)are much worse than we had previously thought The first warning of, we are going to get in your wallet


You're right on both counts:

This really are worse than you believe; if you don't follow the actual numbers, you'd be astounded how in debt we are.

And secondly, yes, we are all going to have to band together to pay for it.

Why is it that Republicans - traditionally known as the 'responsible' party when it comes to fiscal actions - believe we don't have to pay our bills when they come due?

Cycloptichorn

You missed my point. No matter how bad it is, the dems are playing tricks, shabby tricks at that. They didn't know before they promised the tax cut how bad it is? Many people look at a headline & never go any further, many people believe the dems would give the tax cut, I personally knew on election night that a tax hike was coming.
We could all band together & pay if the congress would stop their pet projects, like a $750,000 outdoors two seater someplace in the woods in po dunk , montana.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Dec, 2006 11:11 am
LoneStarMadam wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
"We're in worse shape that we had previously believed"
Thos words were uttered in '93 after the middle class had been promised a tax cut during the campiagn in '92, not only did the middle class get a tax hike, but the dead were taxed as well, plus Al GoreDUM proposed a 50 cent gasoline tax, they got 5 cents.
Now, just the other day, after 'the middle class tax cut was promised during the campaign, the dems come out with, things (finances)are much worse than we had previously thought The first warning of, we are going to get in your wallet


You're right on both counts:

This really are worse than you believe; if you don't follow the actual numbers, you'd be astounded how in debt we are.

And secondly, yes, we are all going to have to band together to pay for it.

Why is it that Republicans - traditionally known as the 'responsible' party when it comes to fiscal actions - believe we don't have to pay our bills when they come due?

Cycloptichorn

You missed my point. No matter how bad it is, the dems are playing tricks, shabby tricks at that. They didn't know before they promised the tax cut how bad it is? Many people look at a headline & never go any further, many people believe the dems would give the tax cut, I personally knew on election night that a tax hike was coming.
We could all band together & pay if the congress would stop their pet projects, like a $750,000 outdoors two seater someplace in the woods in po dunk , montana.


I agree; and the Dems have promised to do away with Earmarks, the best way for 'pet projects' to get funded.

Something the 'fiscally responsible' Republicans never could seem to get around to doing, that.

The Dems never said a word about cutting taxes during the elections...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Dec, 2006 11:25 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
"We're in worse shape that we had previously believed"
Thos words were uttered in '93 after the middle class had been promised a tax cut during the campiagn in '92, not only did the middle class get a tax hike, but the dead were taxed as well, plus Al GoreDUM proposed a 50 cent gasoline tax, they got 5 cents.
Now, just the other day, after 'the middle class tax cut was promised during the campaign, the dems come out with, things (finances)are much worse than we had previously thought The first warning of, we are going to get in your wallet


You're right on both counts:

This really are worse than you believe; if you don't follow the actual numbers, you'd be astounded how in debt we are.

And secondly, yes, we are all going to have to band together to pay for it.

Why is it that Republicans - traditionally known as the 'responsible' party when it comes to fiscal actions - believe we don't have to pay our bills when they come due?

Cycloptichorn

You missed my point. No matter how bad it is, the dems are playing tricks, shabby tricks at that. They didn't know before they promised the tax cut how bad it is? Many people look at a headline & never go any further, many people believe the dems would give the tax cut, I personally knew on election night that a tax hike was coming.
We could all band together & pay if the congress would stop their pet projects, like a $750,000 outdoors two seater someplace in the woods in po dunk , montana.


I agree; and the Dems have promised to do away with Earmarks, the best way for 'pet projects' to get funded.

Something the 'fiscally responsible' Republicans never could seem to get around to doing, that.

The Dems never said a word about cutting taxes during the elections...

Cycloptichorn

Yes, the republicans haven't shown any kind of fiscal restraints either, but the dems are in control of the purse strings now & the only fixer or fiscal responsibility they are offereing thus far, are tax hikes, that is their constant mantra, "tax 'em". Their pet projects will continue.
http://www.latimes.com/wireless/avantgo/la-na-paygo10dec10,0,3057332.story
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Dec, 2006 11:33 am
LoneStarMadam wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
"We're in worse shape that we had previously believed"
Thos words were uttered in '93 after the middle class had been promised a tax cut during the campiagn in '92, not only did the middle class get a tax hike, but the dead were taxed as well, plus Al GoreDUM proposed a 50 cent gasoline tax, they got 5 cents.
Now, just the other day, after 'the middle class tax cut was promised during the campaign, the dems come out with, things (finances)are much worse than we had previously thought The first warning of, we are going to get in your wallet


You're right on both counts:

This really are worse than you believe; if you don't follow the actual numbers, you'd be astounded how in debt we are.

And secondly, yes, we are all going to have to band together to pay for it.

Why is it that Republicans - traditionally known as the 'responsible' party when it comes to fiscal actions - believe we don't have to pay our bills when they come due?

Cycloptichorn

You missed my point. No matter how bad it is, the dems are playing tricks, shabby tricks at that. They didn't know before they promised the tax cut how bad it is? Many people look at a headline & never go any further, many people believe the dems would give the tax cut, I personally knew on election night that a tax hike was coming.
We could all band together & pay if the congress would stop their pet projects, like a $750,000 outdoors two seater someplace in the woods in po dunk , montana.


I agree; and the Dems have promised to do away with Earmarks, the best way for 'pet projects' to get funded.

Something the 'fiscally responsible' Republicans never could seem to get around to doing, that.

The Dems never said a word about cutting taxes during the elections...

Cycloptichorn

Yes, the republicans haven't shown any kind of fiscal restraints either, but the dems are in control of the purse strings now & the only fixer or fiscal responsibility they are offereing thus far, are tax hikes, that is their constant mantra, "tax 'em". Their pet projects will continue.
http://www.latimes.com/wireless/avantgo/la-na-paygo10dec10,0,3057332.story


Except, that isn't true.

They've proposed re-instating 'pay as you go' rules. That's a Fixer that they have put forward.

They've proposed going after those who haven't paid their taxes -290 billion just in the year 2001. That's a Fixer that they have put forward.

They've proposed spending caps. That's a Fixer that they have put forward.

They've proposed re-negotiating drug prices for Social Security. That's a Fixer that they've put forward.

The funny thing is, you say that:

Quote:
but the dems are in control of the purse strings now & the only fixer or fiscal responsibility they are offereing thus far, are tax hikes, that is their constant mantra, "tax 'em".


And then proceed to link to an article containing 4 other proposals put forward by the Dems besides 'tax hikes.'

Too funny

Cycloptichorn Laughing
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Here's a preview of the Democrats' economic policies.
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/28/2024 at 10:25:42