And that is just as wrong. It's showing that they are not wanting to fix the problem, they only want to pander to their base.
I dont see how anyone Dem or Rep can support what their side is doing.
Why? Because things would then be so much simplier. We could cut the IRS way back. Politicians would no longer be able to promise all these cuts for votes.
0-25,000 FLAT 2%
25-50,000 FLAT 12%
50-100,000 FLAT 15%
100-250,000 Flat 18%
Etc, Etc, Etc. (numbers only used for the example, I don't know what they would be exactly)
What is wrong with that?
Boehner Asks Debt Panel to Take on Tax Breaks, Reject Hike - Bloomberg
Can someone explain how this is any different than what Republicans have been implementing since Reagan? A system that has only produced more deficits due a reduction of government revenue and the development of systemic problems due to a lack of reasonable regulations? If it didn't work then, why request we continue to try the same crap?
Can you explain to me why liberals always are more concerned about tax revenue to the govt. and class warfare than doing what is right which is cutting the size of govt? The difference is quite clear between Republicans and Democrats, Republicans don't care what liberals make or pay in taxes whereas liberals are all about jealousy of what someone else makes or pays in taxes.
We currently have a 3.7 trillion dollar Federal Govt. and until liberals realize that no amount of money will ever satisfy the liberal spending appetite we are going to continue to have a divide between Democrats and Republicans.
When you say it didn't work then, please be specific, what didn't work? GDP Doubled, Govt. revenue doubled, 17 million jobs were created after the worst recession since the Great Depression and job losses the first two years?
When will liberals realize we have a spending problem and not a revenue problem? Until the govt. gets spending under control why send them any more money to waste? There is no evidence that sending the govt. more money will ever be put to deficit reduction as politicians are more concerned about keeping their jobs by buying votes instead of doing their job.
and it seems to me the clinton years worked exceptionally well.
You have not made the argument that cutting the size of govt is "right".Can you explain to me why liberals always are more concerned about tax revenue to the govt. and class warfare than doing what is right which is cutting the size of govt?
You're right. That's what a Republican controlled Congress will get you. After all, it's Congress that controls the purse strings and passes laws.
Right ... except the Republicans didn't support the main ingredients responsible for the balanced budget: tax hikes and military spending cuts.
well, that's bull****. many, many republicans on this board are all for taxing low income people more. and it seems to me the clinton years worked exceptionally well.
You have not made the argument that cutting the size of govt is "right".
Historically, the "size" of govt, as you seem to be measuring it, has been about 20% of GDP. Is that "size" the correct one? Or do you want it smaller? (and if so, why is that "right"?)
Taxing low income people more? Poor income people DON'T PAY ANY FEDERAL INCOME TAXES! The Clinton years worked great because Clinton gave us a GOP Congress or did you forget?
Can you explain to me why liberals always are more concerned about tax revenue to the govt. and class warfare than doing what is right which is cutting the size of govt? The difference is quite clear between Republicans and Democrats, Republicans don't care what liberals make or pay in taxes whereas liberals are all about jealousy of what someone else makes or pays in taxes.
We currently have a 3.7 trillion dollar Federal Govt. and until liberals realize that no amount of money will ever satisfy the liberal spending appetite we are going to continue to have a divide between Democrats and Republicans.
When you say it didn't work then, please be specific, what didn't work? GDP Doubled, Govt. revenue doubled, 17 million jobs were created after the worst recession since the Great Depression and job losses the first two years?
When will liberals realize we have a spending problem and not a revenue problem? Until the govt. gets spending under control why send them any more money to waste? There is no evidence that sending the govt. more money will ever be put to deficit reduction as politicians are more concerned about keeping their jobs by buying votes instead of doing their job.
nothing should be off the table? if the democrats propose nuking china so as to cancel our debt to them, should Republicans seek to compromise on only taking out their eastern seaboard?
I'm just curious at what point you would agree that really stupid ideas that will actually destroy wealth, growth, and employment should, indeed, actually "be off the table".
\The size of Govt. is 3.7 trillion dollars and the debt is almost equal to GDP. Why do we need a 3.7 trillion dollar govt/
right, they might not, but you sure seem to want them to! that's a mantra with you and others on this board, bitching about what the poor don't pay. thanks for conceding my point. YOU WANT THEM TO PAY MORE TAXES.
i know that during the clinton years, at least before the vendetta, we had compromise in govt that we've not seen since. purely because the gop decided they would go after what they wanted, instead of attempting to govern responsibly.
Why exactly should I answer any question of yours if you refuse to answer mines?
\
When was the last time Conservatives reduced the size of government? Or do you just mean getting rid of things like Social Security and Medicare? I do think that government in general can be downsized quite a bit; but I don't see those actions taken by either side of the Republocrats.
perhaps you can show me where we had a reduction of revenue?
because I'm not seeing it.
see chart above. tax rates do not directly determine revenue.
You didn't answer anything, you just posed questions.I have answered your question, you blaim Reagan when you don't even know what the Reagan record was. You think 1.7 trillion added to the debt in 8 years justifies the 4 trillion Obama has added to the debt in less than 3? So tell me exactly what didn't work during the Reagan years, the 17 million jobs created, the doubling of GDP, the incentive for individual wealth creation? Do you really believe the leftwing ideology or have you been brainwashed?
You didn't answer anything, you just posed questions.
Are you suggesting Reagan didn't increase the budget deficit?
Are you suggesting Bush 1 didn't increase the budget deficit?
Are you suggesting Bush 2 didn't increase the budget deficit?
I am not suggesting that at all because the facts show it.
Reagan added 1.7 trillion to the debt in 8 years-Divided Congress
Bush one added 1.4 trillion to the debt in 4 years-Democrat controlled Congress
Clinton added 1.3 trillion to the debt in 8 years, GOP Congress from 1995-2000
GW Bush added 4.9 trillion to the debt in 8 years-GOP Congress 2003-2007, Democrats controlled Congress 2007-2008
Obama has added 4 trillion to the debt in 3 years-Democrats with overwhelminng numbers 2009-2010
So what is your point? Your statement was on Reagan so tell me how 1.7 trillion added to the debt in 8 years is worse than 4 trillion added in three?
In addition, did any of these 3 elected officials believe in reducing regulations and cutting taxes to stimulate the economy? Are the Republicans of today requesting the same solution as the above 3 presidents?
Let's hope so, the only way to get out of debt is to cut spending and grow the economy. That is what Reagan did but you were probably too young to realize that.
I know the answer to all of the above is YES, but maybe you have a different prespective than the truth.
If you're upset with budget busting ideas, you cannot blame Democrat Presidents. The 2 within the time frame I described, only Carter and Clinton "ran" the government. Both reduced the budget deficit.
Which party do you trust?
If you know the answer then give them.
Like all liberals you just don't get it, by the way Reagan inherited a 900 billion debt from Carter. Which party do I trust, Democrat or Republican? Republican for all Democrats have done is promote class warfare and class envy. Why would you support a party that pits classes against each other instead of working towards the betterment of all?
Tax revenue is needed to run the government. The government is a tool of and for the people. Currently we are not using the tool properly and we're letting it fall into dis-repair. The right doesn't reduce government, they only shift funds from people and give it to the wealthy via no bid contracts and war.Can you explain to me why liberals always are more concerned about tax revenue to the govt. and class warfare than doing what is right which is cutting the size of govt?
Nosense not even worth addressing.The difference is quite clear between Republicans and Democrats, Republicans don't care what liberals make or pay in taxes whereas liberals are all about jealousy of what someone else makes or pays in taxes.
Republicans increase spending and budget deficits. So you're claim is very much off the mark.We currently have a 3.7 trillion dollar Federal Govt. and until liberals realize that no amount of money will ever satisfy the liberal spending appetite we are going to continue to have a divide between Democrats and Republicans.
Trickle down economics or supply side economics (tax cuts to businesses, the wealthy and well off) does not work. Historically, it never has.When you say it didn't work then, please be specific, what didn't work? GDP Doubled, Govt. revenue doubled, 17 million jobs were created after the worst recession since the Great Depression and job losses the first two years?
First you have to identify what spending was a waste. I think Iraq and Afghanstan were a massive waste. I think giving billionaries a better tax rate than middle class families is a waste of government resources. I think cutting education and trying to destory unions instead of rebuilding our nation's infrastructure is a waste. i think trying to cut Social Security in favor of cutting regulations and given handouts to big business is a waste. War is a waste of life but giving healthcare to all is a boon.When will liberals realize we have a spending problem and not a revenue problem? Until the govt. gets spending under control why send them any more money to waste? There is no evidence that sending the govt. more money will ever be put to deficit reduction as politicians are more concerned about keeping their jobs by buying votes instead of doing their job.
I am not suggesting that at all because the facts show it.
Reagan added 1.7 trillion to the debt in 8 years-Divided Congress
Bush one added 1.4 trillion to the debt in 4 years-Democrat controlled Congress
Clinton added 1.3 trillion to the debt in 8 years, GOP Congress from 1995-2000
GW Bush added 4.9 trillion to the debt in 8 years-GOP Congress 2003-2007, Democrats controlled Congress 2007-2008
Obama has added 4 trillion to the debt in 3 years-Democrats with overwhelminng numbers 2009-2010
So what is your point? Your statement was on Reagan so tell me how 1.7 trillion added to the debt in 8 years is worse than 4 trillion added in three?
Let's hope so, the only way to get out of debt is to cut spending and grow the economy. That is what Reagan did but you were probably too young to realize that.
If you know the answer then give them.
Like all liberals you just don't get it, by the way Reagan inherited a 900 billion debt from Carter. Which party do I trust, Democrat or Republican? Republican for all Democrats have done is promote class warfare and class envy. Why would you support a party that pits classes against each other instead of working towards the betterment of all?
Before you can pay down the debt, you have to balance the budget. Who has done that in recent history - Republicans or Democrats?
Democrats are giving reasonable solutions. Republicans are giving the same failed solutions. I trust the Democrats. At least they're trying a path that has worked before.
Tettsuo;1059807506]Tax revenue is needed to run the government. The government is a tool of and for the people. Currently we are not using the tool properly and we're letting it fall into dis-repair. The right doesn't reduce government, they only shift funds from people and give it to the wealthy via no bid contracts and war.
Nosense not even worth addressing.
Republicans increase spending and budget deficits. So you're claim is very much off the mark.
Trickle down economics or supply side economics (tax cuts to businesses, the wealthy and well off) does not work. Historically, it never has.
First you have to identify what spending was a waste. I think Iraq and Afghanstan were a massive waste. I think giving billionaries a better tax rate than middle class families is a waste of government resources. I think cutting education and trying to destory unions instead of rebuilding our nation's infrastructure is a waste. i think trying to cut Social Security in favor of cutting regulations and given handouts to big business is a waste. War is a waste of life but giving healthcare to all is a boon.
Before you can pay down the debt, you have to balance the budget. Who has done that in recent history - Republicans or Democrats?
Democrats are giving reasonable solutions. Republicans are giving the same failed solutions. I trust the Democrats. At least they're trying a path that has worked before.
Neither party has balanced the budget, Clinton with a Republican Congress came close but did so at the expense of the SS fund.
Reasonable solutions to a Democrat means taking money from someone else and redistributing it to someone else. You trust the Democrats? Why? when did Democrats ever cut spending? Congress appropriates the money, not the Democrats and Republicans cut the Clinton budgets.
I mean taking SS and Medicare off budget and quit using the funds in the General Budget, that would be the first step.
Then I would quit blaming everyone else for the failures of this Administration and quit promoting class warfare.
Today we have a 3.7 trillion dollar govt. and the last Bush budget without TARP and the STimulus plan was 3.1 trillion and that includes military funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars plus SS and Medicare revenue.
You obviously didn't read the Ryan Budget nor the Cut, Cap, and balance proposal since neither got Presidential or Senate support. I suggest doing better research vs. buying media rhetoric.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?