cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: $1 Trillion tax increase


@Democratforlife wrote:

You do know, don't you that most of the new jobs in the report were part time jobs. And why do they not count the people who have stopped looking for work? If they count those people the unemploment rate would be over 11%. Still moving in the right direction? I think not. But, you don't care.


Well if you are correct, the figures for the last 4 years are all bodgied as well.  How come when the numbers fall you scream foul play?  You cannot have it both ways, comrade.

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: $1 Trillion tax increase

I now becomes imperative to sack them rather than everyone pull there weight and pay mores taxes. Who is not pulling their weight here. The upper 5% pays most of the taxes in this country. The lower 50% pays the least amount of taxes. This country has more people on welfare than ever before. More people on disability than ever before . More people on food stamps than ever before. Yesterday I was talking to a friend that runs our local food pantry and she said there as never been so many people coming to the food bank since she can remember . She has been running it for 18 years. This country is on the verge of financial collapse. I am not sure that anyone can pull us back from hyper inflation or hyper interest rates like we saw in the 80's or if we will head the same path as Greece. 

I am sure that if we can no longer afford to give handouts to those on welfare and foodstamps there will be riots. They do not know how to get a job, and will feel they are entitled to that money. 

 

BTW where is the OIL that we went to war for. Freedom...yeah I will agree that a dictator that is Mustard gassing his own people probably needs to be removed, but I am more of an isolationists than a war monger. I believe in protecting "economic allies" (no country truly has friends) like we did in WW2, but that is about it. Worlds 911 number has to come to an end it is killing us economically.

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: $1 Trillion tax increase

 This country is on the verge of financial collapse. I am not sure that anyone can pull us back from hyper inflation or hyper interest rates like we saw in the 80's or if we will head the same path as Greece.----------   Oh really.  Hyper inflation and hyper interest rates?  Quote me the figures and I will show you what hyper means.  You obviously have no concept. The sun will rise in the west when the US financially collapses and there are many major countries all over the world who will and can prevent it if it ever emerges.  Anyway, you talking the US down and spreading the word of doom is doing your cause no good.  Don't you think?   You would be better suited to one of those "only in America" doonsday cults.

 

 This country is on the verge of financial collapse. I am not sure that anyone can pull us back from hyper inflation or hyper interest rates like we saw in the 80's or if we will head the same path as Greece.  ------------            Settle down.  You are over reacting just a tad.  Maybe that is what you righties want just to prove a point but it is never going to happen.  You all are married to your guns and remind us everyday how this is the most disgusting government ever but none of you run to DC to blow him away, take back the country and all the other tissue threats doing the rounds.  Sound and fury signify nothing.

 

You country went to war for the rights to have the oil and trade in Iraq.  This freedom crusade you all waffle about was the thinly veiled disguise for invasion.  Do you really think GWB cared about a mob of towelheads up the back of nowwhere?  He couldn't give a rats about their freedom.  Those 250,000 Iraqies who died as a result are sure pleased Freedom has arrived there.

 

Why are you lot so blinkered to the truth behind your foreign policy?  You can't be that stupid to believe everything GWB said, like the WMD's.  Being such sanctamonous purists in an endeavour to save the world is poppy **bleep** and you need to wake up to yourself.

 

 

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: $1 Trillion tax increase

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

 

High Iraqi officials, including Vice-Premier Tariq Aziz, have since admitted using chemical weapons against the Kurds. Last year, Radio Free Iraq broadcast the allegation by a former brigadier general in Saddam's air force that the command to use "extraordinary" weapons against Halabjah came from the president himself.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2854019.stm

 

 

Now this may be like the holocaust and in some peoples mind never happened but it did. Gas was used by Iraq to kill kurds.

 

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/06/us-usa-fed-bullard-idUSTRE8121QG20120206

 

 

What's 5% on 16 trillion, whats 20%? You must not have business background, when your debts become this great (as a % of your income) no bank in the US would loan you money.

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: $1 Trillion tax increase

Didn't the President declare one of the wars to be over? Didn't the Bush tax cuts have a sunset clause in them, where they expired unless renewed? Why then, isn't the deficit only a third of what it was before hr took office, if the 'reason' for the deficit is two wars and the tax cuts, like I keep hearing?
Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: $1 Trillion tax increase


@Nebrfarmr wrote:
Didn't the President declare one of the wars to be over? Didn't the Bush tax cuts have a sunset clause in them, where they expired unless renewed? Why then, isn't the deficit only a third of what it was before hr took office, if the 'reason' for the deficit is two wars and the tax cuts, like I keep hearing?

Bush had a rush of blood to thed tiny brain and declared one war over but we all knew he was only joshing.  As for the sunset clause on the tax cuts, I will take your word for that. But,  I do know that those tax cuts were borrowed money by the Bush administration, 1.9 trillion in fact.  The two wars have to financed, as you know, and more debt is the only answer when you start in the red as Obama did. I don't understand why the gifted two wars and the Gfc to Obama is not considered when you all start to reel off the mismanagement of his government.  Take those two very important millstones from around his neck and I will bet you all agree how good he has managed it.

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: $1 Trillion tax increase

I have heard, over and over again, that the reason for the DEFICIT (not debt) was because of Bush's tax cut, and for two wars he got us into.

I can actually agree with that.

However, now that Obama declared the war in Afghanistan over (after twice the deaths of US soldiers than under Bush), why does not the deficit go down?  Why is it ever-increasing?

 

If the Bush tax cuts are another reason, why, oh why, did Obama sign an extension onto them? 


If two wars, and the tax cuts, are the reason for the deficits, with the tax cuts ending in 2010, and one of the two wars now over, why is Obama's current deficit (and the projected one for next year) bigger, than the biggest one under Bush?

Shouldn't the deficit be about 1/3 what it was under Bush?  (just in round numbers, when you eliminate 2 of 3 reasons for a deficit, I'm assuming it should drop by about 2/3 as well).

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: $1 Trillion tax increase


@Nebrfarmr wrote:

I have heard, over and over again, that the reason for the DEFICIT (not debt) was because of Bush's tax cut, and for two wars he got us into.

I can actually agree with that.

However, now that Obama declared the war in Afghanistan over (after twice the deaths of US soldiers than under Bush), why does not the deficit go down?  Why is it ever-increasing?

 

If the Bush tax cuts are another reason, why, oh why, did Obama sign an extension onto them? 


If two wars, and the tax cuts, are the reason for the deficits, with the tax cuts ending in 2010, and one of the two wars now over, why is Obama's current deficit (and the projected one for next year) bigger, than the biggest one under Bush?

Shouldn't the deficit be about 1/3 what it was under Bush?  (just in round numbers, when you eliminate 2 of 3 reasons for a deficit, I'm assuming it should drop by about 2/3 as well).


I have said many times how so many on here do not know how an economy works. This is another example only slightly different.  If Obama declared the Afghan over I am amazed that you would entertain the idea that the debt would decrease immediately. What do you think would happen to the soldiers and equipment if it did end?  Would the expenses for having it immediately stop with all those troops over there?  It seems absurd to think Obama might have told them "the war is over guys, find your own way home. You are now unemployed so I can decrease the debt".   That stupid statement sounds like your take on it.  The expenses for the war will go on for decades. When the troops come home, the vast majority will remain in the military and will be an ongoing expense of the government.  You guys want war so it has to be financed.

 

The Bush tax cuts were extended to get Wall Street to stimulate the flat economy with some money of their own.  I have no doubt that the WH had a little chat to those guys pointing how they had been protected under Bush and the Obama Administration now wishes them to stimulate the economy with their own money.  He continued the tax cuts to allow them to do that.  So far the strategy has been perfect as the Dow Jones shows every day.  I would have thought the fundamentals of the stimulus package, and the tax cut extension was obvious to everyone, except maybe the americans.

 

To believe the deficit would reduce overnight when the wars end and the tax cuts phase out is ludicrous.  There is no other solution could have been taken by Obama and the congress etc, knew that. I know you guys would like the blackfella tarred and feathered and he gets all the blame for the debt but as I have said before you need to understand how the economy works.  Rooting for Rommel will not solve the problem.  He has promised to slash and burn but if and when he gets there, reality will set in and he will not run the government like he did Bain capital.  He will not sack half the public servants and the debt will go on for another decade no matter who is the POTUS.  You might all get a fuzzy feeling inside with Rommel's election but the only thing that will change is all you righties will prance and chortle like a dog with two dicks.

Veteran Advisor

Re: $1 Trillion tax increase


@gough whitlam wrote:

@Nebrfarmr wrote:

I have heard, over and over again, that the reason for the DEFICIT (not debt) was because of Bush's tax cut, and for two wars he got us into.

I can actually agree with that.

However, now that Obama declared the war in Afghanistan over (after twice the deaths of US soldiers than under Bush), why does not the deficit go down?  Why is it ever-increasing?

 

If the Bush tax cuts are another reason, why, oh why, did Obama sign an extension onto them? 


If two wars, and the tax cuts, are the reason for the deficits, with the tax cuts ending in 2010, and one of the two wars now over, why is Obama's current deficit (and the projected one for next year) bigger, than the biggest one under Bush?

Shouldn't the deficit be about 1/3 what it was under Bush?  (just in round numbers, when you eliminate 2 of 3 reasons for a deficit, I'm assuming it should drop by about 2/3 as well).


I have said many times how so many on here do not know how an economy works. This is another example only slightly different.  If Obama declared the Afghan over I am amazed that you would entertain the idea that the debt would decrease immediately. What do you think would happen to the soldiers and equipment if it did end?  Would the expenses for having it immediately stop with all those troops over there?  It seems absurd to think Obama might have told them "the war is over guys, find your own way home. You are now unemployed so I can decrease the debt".   That stupid statement sounds like your take on it.  The expenses for the war will go on for decades. When the troops come home, the vast majority will remain in the military and will be an ongoing expense of the government.  You guys want war so it has to be financed.

 

But I kept hearing that ending the war, would cut the deficit, now I'm hearing different?  To be fair to you, I don't think you are one who implied that if the wars were just over, the expense would end the next day.  However, there should be significant savings, when all the Reserve troops, that are no longer needed, go home, and are no longer on combat pay.  You are aware of that, are you not?  That the US called up 'reserve' troops, that are basically only on call during times of war, and when the war is over, they go back home, and are no longer on active duty.  Where is the savings from that?  Should not the deficits be at least a little bit less, now that the war is 'over'?  Why are the deficits MORE than before, with the war being over and all?

Also, don't include me in the 'you guys want war' crowd.  For the last however many years, I wanted the US military, to defend US interests, only.  If we had put the effort into security, instead of military strikes, 911 may have never happened.

 

 

The Bush tax cuts were extended to get Wall Street to stimulate the flat economy with some money of their own.  I have no doubt that the WH had a little chat to those guys pointing how they had been protected under Bush and the Obama Administration now wishes them to stimulate the economy with their own money.  He continued the tax cuts to allow them to do that.  So far the strategy has been perfect as the Dow Jones shows every day.  I would have thought the fundamentals of the stimulus package, and the tax cut extension was obvious to everyone, except maybe the americans.

 

I'm just stating that those on the left, keep calling them the BUSH tax cuts, when it was OBAMA that had ample opportunity, to end them, simply by vetoing the extension.  There was no supermajority in Congress, to override his veto.  I hear over and over of the EEEEEEEVIL Bush cuts, and how it is at the heart of the deficits, and now that Obama has renewed them, they are suddenly the right thing to do?  Even going with that point, that they WERE the right thing to do, it has now become the OBAMA tax cut extension, so let's at least open our eyes to that fact.  Obama could have simply let them expire, but he did not.  That is when the tax cut baton was handed to him.  He chose what to do with it.

 

 

To believe the deficit would reduce overnight when the wars end and the tax cuts phase out is ludicrous.  There is no other solution could have been taken by Obama and the congress etc, knew that. I know you guys would like the blackfella tarred and feathered and he gets all the blame for the debt but as I have said before you need to understand how the economy works. 

It would seem to me, if you raised tax rates, the treasury would get more money coming in, the moment the higher rate took effect.  Can you explain to me, how raising rates, would not do this?  If raising taxes, does not bring more money into the treasury, what is the point or raising them?

 

 

Rooting for Rommel will not solve the problem.  He has promised to slash and burn but if and when he gets there, reality will set in and he will not run the government like he did Bain capital.  He will not sack half the public servants and the debt will go on for another decade no matter who is the POTUS.  You might all get a fuzzy feeling inside with Rommel's election but the only thing that will change is all you righties will prance and chortle like a dog with two dicks.

 

I never said Romney was the answer.  What I said is that at least he acknowledges that the US is running on borrowed pretend money, and something must be done to change that.  Admitting there is a problem is at least a first step to solving it.  That is already more than Obama has done towards reducing the deficit.  Remember, Obama is the one who promised to stimulate the economy, and cut the deficit in half in his first term, and has stated publicly that if he does not do that, he will be a one term President.  Does that mean he wants to tar and feather himself?

 


 

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: $1 Trillion tax increase

Do you remember talking about how the repubs wouldn't compromise on anything Obama wanted to do?  The tax cuts were to expire and Obama wanted to keep all of them except for those making over $250K but the repubs wouldn't hear of it.  All or nothing.  They would not let the cuts on the rich to expire and let the poorer folks catch a break.  If money was spent last year and then revenue was cut so that it couldn't be paid for, then the debt is still there this year.  Get it?