" snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net" wrote in news:a5ffd370- snipped-for-privacy@l14g2000vbe.googlegroups.com:
I have the same fears, but a slightly different solution. The Bush tax cuts were an abomination. Under Reagan the tax rates were even higher. Somehow, conservative minds should realize that rates have to go up from what they are now. That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be spending cuts were appropriate. Lets figure out where the greatest spending increases occurred, which of those can most easily be diminshed, and for which increases in spending we should compensate with tax increases, after we close some loopholes. I would personally "suffer" if capital gains were taxed higher and charitable and other deductions were limited, but maybe that should happen.
The point is that any time there is talk about the deficit and debt crisis, the two wars always get brought up by liberals as if they were the sole cause or the main cause of the deficit and the national debt. As I have pointed out time and time again, the total cost of both wars for
10 years was about $1.3tril. Yet the deficit for last year was $1.3tril ALONE and Obama is calling for a deficit of $1.2tril for the NEXT year. The most costly war is already OVER. The other is winding down. Many of us are just sick and tired of folks pointing to the wars when they are clearly NOT the main causes.
And while we're at lies and the wars, let's look at the latest claims made by Obama regarding "savings". In his new budget he claims he's reducing the deficit by $4tril over 10 years. With $3.5tril coming from spending cuts. Wow, sounds good. Except:
1 - $1tril of those cuts are coming from cuts mandated by the debt increase process from last summer, yet he's counting it again.
2 - $850bil is coming from counting the ending of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of that $850bil, he proposes to use $250bil for new spending. In other words, he's counting spending that never would have occured and using it to justify in part, more NEW spending.
That's a whopping $1.85 tril worth of lies right off the top. About $1.5 tril of deficit reduction would come from tax increases, if Obama had his way. That part, if enacted is the only REAL part of the plan that would materialize.
I suggest you actually look at a federal budget one day and see where the money is really going. Then you would see the real major problems.
You don't have to do that. For instance, prior to the rise of earmarks, most Hiway dollars were doled out on the basis of a Congressionally-mandated formula. The enabling legislation outlined the type of projects and the formula for disbursing the money. That is still the case, to my understanding, for most of the money. Of course this was also subject to game playing, so the states with the most senior people got more than they paid in after playing with the formula.
Because all of the indicators suggest that cuts (at least until they reach the new equilibrium) add to revenues. In actual money, both the RR and the Bush tax cuts dropped first year but were back up to the original revenue within two years at worst. The other, more compelling argument to my mind, is what happened in real life compared to the models used by the Joint Committee on Taxation to officially "score" the changes. Not only was the drop in the first year much less than forecasted, but the JCT scoring suggested that revenue wouln't return to original levels for the entire 10 years of the scoring. (not matter if you evaluated the yearly results as cumulative over the 10 years or if you just took each year's results individually.)
Of course most of it was. The last budget of GW would have been enacted for 2009 on 10-1-2008. But they have also shown that taxation without some incentives for cap and biz formation is not the answer either.
The main problem with tax increases is that they are institutionalized in law with an enforcement mechanism. On spending there is no way that the current Congress (even assuming they COULD control spending) can have any impact on the next. If there was a way to make sure the spending cuts would take place, I would be a lot more sanguine about tax increases.
Not at all, since this is all national level discussion and thus talking about federal taxes. If you look at them (even including the fed payroll and excise taxes), there isn't all that much difference. The main reason for this is that the tax credits do their job and offset much of these taxes paid by our lowest tax payers. Just adding in SS and MCare taxes, the lowest quintile STILL pays negative income taxes.
Unbelievable. In other words, we shouldn't confuse you with the facts, eh? That's the problem with liberals, it's never about the facts, it's just emotion and the way it should be.
" snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@bs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
We'll never agree here. The tax cuts reduced revenue, and the wars added expenses. The major expenses may be over, but the country is still in a recession that we are barely starting to crawl out of. You can't stop stimulating the economy at this point. Simple as that. I agree that we have to plug the leaks both on the expense and income sides.
Kurt Ullman wrote in news:VcydnShmTvwPm9zSnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:
Well, yes there is that thing that we call in the eye of the beholder. What is essential to some is a waste to others. Especially in the area of transportation.
Kurt Ullman wrote in news:1rmdnahr_pSTl9zSnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:
Then we need a mechanism to make congresscritters responsible for what happens 2 or 5 years hence. I don't know how to do that. But I agree that in years past they were able to adjust social security stuff to at least postpone problems. The same things SHOULD be done now again for SS Medi****, taxes and spending. However, (on both sides) standing rigorously on campaign stances isn't useful.
I don't see it as a campaign stance. I see it as defending liberty. Just as this country was founded to get away from tyranny from the British, today we're slowing allowing govt to take away our freedom. Each year the average American winds up working more days to pay for govt that has gotten too large. Many of us recognize it as the biggest threat today to our freedom. Not only does it result in us becoming serfs of the state, more govt meand more govt involvement in controlling everything we do. Witness how Obamacare is now impacting Catholic charities for example.
Taxes are NOT the problem. The federal govt took in more money last year than ever before in history. Out of control spending is the problem.
If it's as simple as that, how exactly did the US economy grow from 1776 until Keynesian economics were invented? This is another liberal fallacy. That a free economy is unaceptable and we need the govt to control it.
=A0>I agree that we
Tax revenue is at an all time high. Spending has increased
40% since 2007. When you liberals show us that you've made serious, real cuts in that 40%, then you can come talk to us about tax increases.
" snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@l14g2000vbe.googlegroups.com:
I can't disagree more. It is male catholic hierarchy among other male religious organizations who want to usurp power and claim that religious freedom is challenged. Nothing is further from the truth. Secular law needs to trump religious law at all instances. Otherwise, sharia law will soon be instituted and that is something neither you nor I want. If there were true religious freedom involved the religious crowd should be able to get some women to testify on their behalf. The regrettable fact that the religious powers are so out of touch with their flock that almost all women disregard the edicts of the top of the male church is proof enough. Freedom is a personal thing. If you prohibit choice from among the employees by taking the possibility of choice away, then you (whatever crowd you stands for) are the tyranny. And don't say that then they shouldn't work for a catholic charity, because those charities do a lot of good, and perhaps those women like to contribute to that.
First one I've seen express what I've been thinking. Too bad the talking heads don't have the balls to call these Republicans what they are. American Taliban.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.