Dave_In_Norfolk Posted July 15, 2011 Posted July 15, 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. That's called the Paul Ryan budget and the voters found out about it and the Republicans ran for their rabbit holes. Fox news even began promoting that dork for president
Magox Posted July 15, 2011 Posted July 15, 2011 (edited) That's called the Paul Ryan budget and the voters found out about it and the Republicans ran for their rabbit holes. Fox news even began promoting that dork for president I can tell you this, there isn't any politician on either side of the aisle that is as substantive and understands economic policy as well as Paul Ryan, not to mention that he has the enormous size gonads, which is what this country so desperately needs right now. Edited July 15, 2011 by Magox
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted July 15, 2011 Posted July 15, 2011 I can tell you this, there isn't any politician on either side of the aisle that is as substantive and understands economic policy as well as Paul Ryan, not to mention that he has the enormous size gonads, which is what this country so desperately needs right now. I am glad he came up with his plan and put it out there.
Magox Posted July 15, 2011 Posted July 15, 2011 I am glad he came up with his plan and put it out there. I'm sure you do, no one likes to see their benefits cuts, specially when the other side is demagoguing them at every turn. It's a losing argument, however it doesnt make it the wrong one.
DC Tom Posted July 15, 2011 Posted July 15, 2011 I'm sure you do, no one likes to see their benefits cuts, specially when the other side is demagoguing them at every turn. It's a losing argument, however it doesnt make it the wrong one. One gets the feeling that Dave would be completely helpless if it weren't for government handouts.
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted July 15, 2011 Posted July 15, 2011 One gets the feeling that Dave would be completely helpless if it weren't for government handouts. You are 100% right Tom. How would I buy all that medication for my mother's heart problem? And pay for all her doctor's visits? Yup, you got me there
IDBillzFan Posted July 15, 2011 Posted July 15, 2011 I can tell you this, there isn't any politician on either side of the aisle that is as substantive and understands economic policy as well as Paul Ryan, not to mention that he has the enormous size gonads, which is what this country so desperately needs right now. He was interviewed on Greta last night, and I was naively stunned to find out he is not in the room for the debt negotiations.
Magox Posted July 15, 2011 Posted July 15, 2011 (edited) He was interviewed on Greta last night, and I was naively stunned to find out he is not in the room for the debt negotiations. I'll tell you why, because his medicare voucher like plan is off the table. However, I must clarify, if there is a politician who is a close second to Ryan, regarding their understanding of economic policy, it is Pat Toomey. That is one smart mother !@#$er. Edited July 15, 2011 by Magox
IDBillzFan Posted July 15, 2011 Posted July 15, 2011 I'll tell you why, because his medicare voucher like plan is off the table. However, I must clarify, if there is a politician who is a close second to Ryan, regarding their understanding of economic policy, it is Pat Toomey. That is one smart mother !@#$er. What I would be interested in finding out is "Who IS in the debt meetings?" She also interviewed Boehner last night, and he made an interesting comment that "there are too many people in the room" who are essentially "throwing cold water on any idea we come up with." From the photos, I can make out Boehner, McConnell and Cantor, which makes me wonder if the other 20 people are ALL Obama people, in which case Boehner's comment is pretty telling; we're out-numbered. I gotta give Greta credit, by the way. I've essentially tuned her out lately as she's been all Caley Anthony, which I could not care less about. But last night she put it in gear and asked some pretty decent questions, and aside from Boehner doing his best not to come out and say Obama is a freaking idiot ("he keeps moving the goal posts and won't give us HIS plan"), I also got the sense that he is really pissed that McConnell came out with his plan so soon.
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted July 15, 2011 Posted July 15, 2011 I'll tell you why, because his medicare voucher like plan is off the table. However, I must clarify, if there is a politician who is a close second to Ryan, regarding their understanding of economic policy, it is Pat Toomey. That is one smart mother !@#$er. Oh? He makes the same argument that idiot Barbara Bachmann is. Real smart! http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/your-world-cavuto/2011/07/14/toomey-we-will-not-default-our-debt What a second, is he the guy who is leading the charge for a balanced budget amendment? That's not just idiot and stupid, its almost treasonable. How the hell you gonna balance the budget with out ruining the economy? The government could never run a deficit? WTF! Wow, your heroes are blind ideologues. Doctrinair communists share many of the same characterists of blind devotion to a cause
/dev/null Posted July 15, 2011 Posted July 15, 2011 You are 100% right Tom. How would I buy all that medication for my mother's heart problem? And pay for all her doctor's visits? Yup, you got me there And your mothers heart problem is society's responsibility how?
Magox Posted July 15, 2011 Posted July 15, 2011 Oh? He makes the same argument that idiot Barbara Bachmann is. Real smart! http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/your-world-cavuto/2011/07/14/toomey-we-will-not-default-our-debt What a second, is he the guy who is leading the charge for a balanced budget amendment? That's not just idiot and stupid, its almost treasonable. How the hell you gonna balance the budget with out ruining the economy? The government could never run a deficit? WTF! Wow, your heroes are blind ideologues. Doctrinair communists share many of the same characterists of blind devotion to a cause Go back to your hole, I'm not interested in your conversation any longer. YOu dont ever have anything substantive to offer, you are a partisan lemming and you ARE part of the problem. What I would be interested in finding out is "Who IS in the debt meetings?" She also interviewed Boehner last night, and he made an interesting comment that "there are too many people in the room" who are essentially "throwing cold water on any idea we come up with." From the photos, I can make out Boehner, McConnell and Cantor, which makes me wonder if the other 20 people are ALL Obama people, in which case Boehner's comment is pretty telling; we're out-numbered. I gotta give Greta credit, by the way. I've essentially tuned her out lately as she's been all Caley Anthony, which I could not care less about. But last night she put it in gear and asked some pretty decent questions, and aside from Boehner doing his best not to come out and say Obama is a freaking idiot ("he keeps moving the goal posts and won't give us HIS plan"), I also got the sense that he is really pissed that McConnell came out with his plan so soon. I saw that, and I agree she did have some really good questions and I also agree with Boehner's comment regarding too many people in the room trying to broker a deal. THrough personal experiences, when you have too many chiefs at the table, nothing ever gets done.
3rdnlng Posted July 15, 2011 Posted July 15, 2011 (edited) Oh? He makes the same argument that idiot Barbara Bachmann is. Real smart! http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/your-world-cavuto/2011/07/14/toomey-we-will-not-default-our-debt What a second, is he the guy who is leading the charge for a balanced budget amendment? That's not just idiot and stupid, its almost treasonable. How the hell you gonna balance the budget with out ruining the economy? The government could never run a deficit? WTF! Wow, your heroes are blind ideologues. Doctrinair communists share many of the same characterists of blind devotion to a cause All you want to know about Bachmann. Considering the injuries I think you are being a little harsh on her. http://askville.amazon.com/Barbara-Bachman-return-back-Minnesota/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=14465504 Edited July 15, 2011 by 3rdnlng
IDBillzFan Posted July 15, 2011 Posted July 15, 2011 What a second, is he the guy who is leading the charge for a balanced budget amendment? That's not just idiot and stupid, its almost treasonable. How the hell you gonna balance the budget with out ruining the economy? The government could never run a deficit? WTF! Wow, your heroes are blind ideologues. Doctrinair communists share many of the same characterists of blind devotion to a cause You truly are batschittt stupid.
whateverdude Posted July 16, 2011 Posted July 16, 2011 (edited) 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. Raising taxes will not bring in more money because it's a drag on the economy. We need more people working in private industry to increase the revenue. The way things are now I could really give a crap if we default on Aug 2. because we are already in default..the brain is dead the body has just not received the message yet. One other thing the Dems with raise taxes but mark my words they will never get around to the spending cuts of a deal Edited July 16, 2011 by whateverdude
Magox Posted July 16, 2011 Posted July 16, 2011 Raising taxes will not bring in more money because it's a drag on the economy. We need more people working in private industry to increase the revenue. The way things are now I could really give a crap if we default on Aug 2. because we are already in default..the brain is dead the body has just not received the message yet. One other thing the Dems with raise taxes but mark my words they will never get around to the spending cuts of a deal Well you may not give a crap but the economy will be in a world of hurt whether you like it or not. Revenues will NEED to be raised at some point in the not so distant future, and Im not talking about what will happen, I'm talking about what should happen. We need to raise more revenues and cut expenditures, period!
IDBillzFan Posted July 16, 2011 Posted July 16, 2011 Well you may not give a crap but the economy will be in a world of hurt whether you like it or not. Revenues will NEED to be raised at some point in the not so distant future, and Im not talking about what will happen, I'm talking about what should happen. We need to raise more revenues and cut expenditures, period! I think we can raise revenues without raising taxes. Or again, as Rubio said...we don't need new taxes, we need new taxpayers.
Magox Posted July 16, 2011 Posted July 16, 2011 I think we can raise revenues without raising taxes. Or again, as Rubio said...we don't need new taxes, we need new taxpayers. In my estimations, considering where we are in the economy, how far debt we are, and our future prospects, I dont believe we can raise enough revenues without somehow raising taxes without facing a debt crisis. I believe its gonna happen, and I believe people are too complacent about it or so ideaologically driven that they refuse to see the argument from the other side. Rubio is a phenomneal politician, and there is something to what he says, but in 99% of the cases, I wouldnt go by what a politican says when it comes to economics.
Adam Posted July 16, 2011 Posted July 16, 2011 We need serious entitlement reforms, but can't have a balanced budget amendment. A balanced budget amendment is ludicrous, as you have to be able to run deficits to some point. First reform should be upping the social security age by at least 10 years. Second- tell the healthcare lobby to take their money and stick it where the sun don't shine, by opening state lines for competition- I don't know how this would be done, as all our politicians are dirty, IMHO. To further lower health care costs, improve health education in schools and for %^$^%$^ sake, remove all soda, candy and white flour from school cafeterias and vending machines. Lower sales tax and institute a sin tax for the above foods, alcohol and tobacco products. There will be whining about that, but if people are that weak that they need those products, they can deal with it- I couldn't care less! Give a tax break to gym/fitness center membership enrollments. As health improves, medical entitlement expenditures will decline.
Recommended Posts