Adam Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 or you could argue that we shouldn't have gone even if we could afford it That's debatable, but war has to be funded.
DC Tom Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 IT'S BOTH!! Holy ****, did we just agree on something?
Gary M Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) Holy ****, did we just agree on something? Quick plead insanity, it's a believable defense. I think we all agree on the current problem, the solution seems to be where the disagreement is. Edited July 13, 2011 by Gary M
Rob's House Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) Just because someone has a specific ideology, doesn't mean that the perfect conditions exist to enact that ideology. That fact is, we should have raised taxes 10 years ago, to pay for the war and if we decided that the economy wouldn't be able to handle increased taxes, we shouldn't have gone to war. no, we shouldn't have raised taxes. Right now taxpayers are having appx 1/3-1/2 of their income taken. Just because it's been higher in the past or b/c we're running defecits doesn't now make it a good idea. It's popular right now to claim this bull **** game of straddling the middle and claiming the need for higher taxes and spending cuts to seem middle of the road, but it's foolish. If we had a 25% top marginal rate I might be singing a different tune, but we don't so I'm not. The solution is amazingly simple: Aggressively slash entitlement spending, eliminate some of the more suffocating regulations, and let the economy grow to the point where revenues exceed expenditures. The problem is too many of you have come accustomed to the govt playing the roles of Daddy, Salvation Army, Santa Clause, and The Red Cross so long you can't bare to face the world alone. And as long as so many of our male population take pride in being dickless, nutless, estrogen pumping, hypersensitive eunuchs who would rather moralize than face reality then we'll keep having these idiotic discussions and continue to be cheerleaders of our own descent. Edited July 13, 2011 by Rob's House
Gary M Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 no, we shouldn't have raised taxes. Right now taxpayers are having appx 1/3-1/2 of their income taken. Just because it's been higher in the past or b/c we're running defecits doesn't now make it a good idea. It's popular right now to claim this bull **** game of straddling the middle and claiming the need for higher taxes and spending cuts to seem middle of the road, but it's foolish. If we had a 25% top marginal rate I might be singing a different tune, but we don't so I'm not. The solution is amazingly simple: Aggressively slash entitlement spending, eliminate some of the more suffocating regulations, and let the economy growing to the point where revenues exceed expenditures. The problem is too many of you have come accustomed to the govt playing the roles of Daddy, Salvation Army, Santa Clause, and The Red Cross so long you can't bare to face the world alone. And as long as so many of our male population take pride in being dickless, nutless, estrogen pumping, hypersensitive eunuchs who would rather moralize than face reality then we'll keep having these idiotic discussions and continue to be cheerleaders of our own descent. The worst part is that our elected representitives are more than willing to continue this cycle with little or no regard for the future, as long as they get re-elected and don't have to shoulder the blame. When this house of cards collapses it will be worse than what we have been seeing in europe.
Adam Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 no, we shouldn't have raised taxes. Right now taxpayers are having appx 1/3-1/2 of their income taken. Just because it's been higher in the past or b/c we're running defecits doesn't now make it a good idea. It's popular right now to claim this bull **** game of straddling the middle and claiming the need for higher taxes and spending cuts to seem middle of the road, but it's foolish. If we had a 25% top marginal rate I might be singing a different tune, but we don't so I'm not. The solution is amazingly simple: Aggressively slash entitlement spending, eliminate some of the more suffocating regulations, and let the economy growing to the point where revenues exceed expenditures. The problem is too many of you have come accustomed to the govt playing the roles of Daddy, Salvation Army, Santa Clause, and The Red Cross so long you can't bare to face the world alone. And as long as so many of our male population take pride in being dickless, nutless, estrogen pumping, hypersensitive eunuchs who would rather moralize than face reality then we'll keep having these idiotic discussions and continue to be cheerleaders of our own descent. The government doesn't give me squat and I don't want it to. I am for raising the social security age by at least 10-15 years if not more, so you are preaching to the wrong person. The fact remains that if we can't afford to raise taxes to pay for us to go to war, then we don't belong in a war. National defense is no different than entitlements- if you can't pay for it, you can't have it. I am also tired of the democrats and republicans playing whack-a-mole with the blame- we ALL are to blame. Who will have the guts to fix things?
Rob's House Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 The government doesn't give me squat and I don't want it to. I am for raising the social security age by at least 10-15 years if not more, so you are preaching to the wrong person. The fact remains that if we can't afford to raise taxes to pay for us to go to war, then we don't belong in a war. National defense is no different than entitlements- if you can't pay for it, you can't have it. I am also tired of the democrats and republicans playing whack-a-mole with the blame- we ALL are to blame. Who will have the guts to fix things? yeah, my response actually became more directed at a lot of what's been said lately by others than it was to your statement.
/dev/null Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) National defense is no different than entitlements- if you can't pay for it, you can't have it. But that's the way we've been doing things for the last half century Edited July 13, 2011 by /dev/null
birdog1960 Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 no, we shouldn't have raised taxes. Right now taxpayers are having appx 1/3-1/2 of their income taken. Just because it's been higher in the past or b/c we're running defecits doesn't now make it a good idea. It's popular right now to claim this bull **** game of straddling the middle and claiming the need for higher taxes and spending cuts to seem middle of the road, but it's foolish. If we had a 25% top marginal rate I might be singing a different tune, but we don't so I'm not. The solution is amazingly simple: Aggressively slash entitlement spending, eliminate some of the more suffocating regulations, and let the economy grow to the point where revenues exceed expenditures. The problem is too many of you have come accustomed to the govt playing the roles of Daddy, Salvation Army, Santa Clause, and The Red Cross so long you can't bare to face the world alone. And as long as so many of our male population take pride in being dickless, nutless, estrogen pumping, hypersensitive eunuchs who would rather moralize than face reality then we'll keep having these idiotic discussions and continue to be cheerleaders of our own descent. because it's uniquely masculine to be mean, uncaring and selfish
DC Tom Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 Quick plead insanity, it's a believable defense. I was just going to call him an idiot and bash a union, just to make myself feel better. I think we all agree on the current problem, the solution seems to be where the disagreement is. The solution is simple: when you have a lot of debt, you earn more or spend less. When you have TOO MUCH debt, you earn more AND spend less. That, at least, is one of those principles that holds just as well for government spending as it does household budgets. The fact remains that if we can't afford to raise taxes to pay for us to go to war, then we don't belong in a war. National defense is no different than entitlements- if you can't pay for it, you can't have it. Actually, national defense is a pretty important expenditure. Maybe not the most important, but probably more so than a lot of expenditures. But note my emphasis on "defense"...because my statement does not go so far as covering the invasion of soverign nations on vague pretenses of a threat.
Adam Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 yeah, my response actually became more directed at a lot of what's been said lately by others than it was to your statement. I do that all the time (if you haven't noticed) so I can't complain
Rob's House Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 because it's uniquely masculine to be mean, uncaring and selfish It's the role of the masculine to be able to look beyond emotion and do what's necessary. When you call fiscal responsibility mean, uncaring, & selfish you sound like a little girl pouting because Daddy is so mean he won't buy her a pony.
birdog1960 Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 It's the role of the masculine to be able to look beyond emotion and do what's necessary. When you call fiscal responsibility mean, uncaring, & selfish you sound like a little girl pouting because Daddy is so mean he won't buy her a pony. you really are a renaissance man. i'm somehow not picturing a future white shoes lawyer here.
Barack Obama Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 But that's the way we've been doing things for the last half century Change we can believe in!
....lybob Posted July 13, 2011 Author Posted July 13, 2011 It's the role of the masculine to be able to look beyond emotion and do what's necessary. When you call fiscal responsibility mean, uncaring, & selfish you sound like a little girl pouting because Daddy is so mean he won't buy her a pony. Sorry, fear and anger are emotions and the right is filled with it- and only pricks think being a prick is the defining characteristic of masculinity.
whateverdude Posted July 14, 2011 Posted July 14, 2011 Holy ****, did we just agree on something? And you think raising taxes is going to bring any sustainable revenue in?
billsfan89 Posted July 14, 2011 Posted July 14, 2011 I never understood why you couldn't do both? End the Bush era tax cuts (Which would set the rates to where they were in the 90's you know a time when the economy was in the tanker), end corporate tax loopholes, AND heavily go after spending cuts. We are fighting two wars, have the lowest tax rates in 50+ years, and have the baby boomers starting to retire and get into entitlement programs. Why is restoring the tax rates to 1990's levels off the table. Yes its more so a spending problem than a revenue problem but you can't rob Peter to pay Paul. If restoring the tax rates cuts the deficit by even 10% than why shouldn't that be explored? You have to attack the problem at both ends, YES spending is the one that deserves more attention but that doesn't mean revenue should be off the table either.
birdog1960 Posted July 14, 2011 Posted July 14, 2011 I never understood why you couldn't do both? End the Bush era tax cuts (Which would set the rates to where they were in the 90's you know a time when the economy was in the tanker), end corporate tax loopholes, AND heavily go after spending cuts. We are fighting two wars, have the lowest tax rates in 50+ years, and have the baby boomers starting to retire and get into entitlement programs. Why is restoring the tax rates to 1990's levels off the table. Yes its more so a spending problem than a revenue problem but you can't rob Peter to pay Paul. If restoring the tax rates cuts the deficit by even 10% than why shouldn't that be explored? You have to attack the problem at both ends, YES spending is the one that deserves more attention but that doesn't mean revenue should be off the table either. i don't think our legislators on either side understand it either. it's insanity. the contention that growth decreases with increased taxes on the most wealthy is disproven over and over throughout history yet people are more than willing to buy this hogwash (see the tables in the business insider link). those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
Magox Posted July 14, 2011 Posted July 14, 2011 And you think raising taxes is going to bring any sustainable revenue in? Stop being so damn hard headed, it's not about bringing in sustainable revenues, its about avoiding a debt crisis. If we didn't have such a large debt then I'd agree with you, but we aren't living normal times now and YES right now we do have a major REVENUE problem, not just spending. For those that keep repeating this talking point of "we dont have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem" is just plain full of ****. Normally, we do have just a spending problems, but the fact of the matter is, ever since the economy crashed in 2008, the major deficit driver along with the stimulus bill is lack of revenues. That's a fact! That's not theory or a guess or calculation, it's a fact. You can look it up for yourself. So what we are trying to communicate to you hard heads is that right now, unfortunately we need to raise revenues along with slashing spending. Why? To avoid a future debt crisis. So it's all hands on deck time, simply because of all the debts we've racked up over the years, which we had always taken for granted, and now with the tremendous loss of revenues, the debt alarms are sounding, and they are getting louder and louder. I'm thinking 3 to 4 dollars in REAL cuts to 1 dollar in raised revenues sounds about right to me.
Recommended Posts