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

Re: $1 Trillion tax increase


@Nebrfarmr wrote:

@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.

I am unaware of how man troops have been discharged and how many have been sent home so I don't know what if any savings on wages it would be but wages for troops is a very small part of the cost of a war, in fact miniscule. But haveing said that, I think the wars are a long way from being over. It will go on for years yet so to expect the debt to reduce when they send home some troops is a bridge too far.

 

 

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.

 

It was the right thing to do as the economy is demonstrating every day. Call the originator of the tax cuts whoever you want but for Obama to not extend them further to Wall Street would have put the economy into deeper trouble.  Bear in mind this money never arrived at the Fed but was given as a gratuity for them to do with it was wshould have been responsible.  They too have very good reasons to want the economy improve.

 

 

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?

 

Well it would bring more money into the treasury but tax does not enter the system immediately they start. It is the same for when the government spend money, it takes a while for it to filter through the system and possibly they will not be felt on the debt if they ever will because the economy moves on to other expenditure.  But to ignore the raising of taxes as a source of income would be stupid. The raising of taxes is not the only option available to governments.  They have many other sources of revenues as you would be aware.

 

 

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?

I think you will find that Obama is aware of the huge borrowings of the US.  For anyone to pretend he is frugal with it is stupid.  It verges of lack of brains to even contemplate the POTUS is not aware.  Being a Democrat does not give him a mortgage on stupidity.  As I said before, Rommel will not do half what he says he will and for anyone to believe the sh-t he is spewing out in desperation is not concerned with the long term benefit of the US.  I know I am. Of course he promised those things but so is Rommel.  He didn't make it so he we are today.  There is no use in blaming Obama for all the debt, we have been down there before but I would like to point out most of Obama's debt was a successful attempt to save a sinking economy.  Bush spent 1.9 trillion on tax concessions for his buddies in Wall Street and starting two wars to seize all the oil flows. That is where the debt first exited the feotus stage.  

 


 


 

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: $1 Trillion tax increase


@schnurrbart wrote:

Do you remember talking about how the repubs wouldn't compromise on anything Obama wanted to do?

Yes, I even remember a headline about how the Dems 'stood in unison' against the Republican 'partisanship'.  However, Dems had both houses of Congress, for 2 years, why not address it then?

 

 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.

Why didn't Obama veto it, and then say he'll sign any tax cut for middle and lower income people ONLY.  Isn't a President supposed to lead?  He caves in to whatever Congress runs by him, alsmost as bad as Bush did.

 

 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?

I did not say debt, I said deficit.  If you pass a tax increase, effective, say, November 1st, shouldn't you start to recieve more revenue, and cut the deficit, starting at that point?

Ditto, spending?  If you cut spending, effective, say, October 11th, should not the deficit begin to shrink, starting that day?


 

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: $1 Trillion tax increase

I think that you have surely read the reason for that several times on here but one more time---they did not have a filabuster proof house or senate.  Obama was willing to compromise but repubs don't compromise.  It ain't manly!  If there isn't some compromise soon in our congress, you can kiss all you have goodbye.  Too bad you didn't spend any time in the military, you might have learned some better survival skills.

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: $1 Trillion tax increase

Farmer, instead of the Rebpublican dog whistles, here are the facts about the, supposed Democrat supermajority.

 

 

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-the-democrats-ever-really-have-60-votes-in-the-senate-and-for-h...

 

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: $1 Trillion tax increase

I asked this several times, and have yet to get an answer.

Which bills, specifically, did they filibuster?

I did a search on ask.com, and all they had the stats for at the time, was for 2009, but the answer was zero.

Why do you need a fillibuster proof Senate, to combat zero fillibusters?

 

As for my survival skills, I would put them above most, maybe not a 'pure' survivalist, but I am not sitting on my couch, hoping someone else comes up and saves me.

 

As for congress, I think they are pretty much like the old joke, since con is the opposite of pro, what is the opposite of 'progress'.  I still think, that when Obamacare was passed, without the open hearings (remember those open, televised hearings that we were promised?) enough people short-sightedly voted for people who promised if they got in, they would halt the progress of any new Democrat bills.  The people who did that, are getting what they voted for.  However, I think part of the reason that they got voted in, was the ramming through of Obamacare, against the promise of the open hearings, and also against the promise that all bills would be posted in their entirety on the internet, before they were voted upon.  I know most people don't actually read them, nor would they understand what they are reading, but they were mad, and easily led in that direction by people who worked them into a frenzy for their benefit.

Ideally, the two sides would decide something like feeding hungry children.  Rather than bicker about some detail in which they disagree, they should find what they agree on, pass that part of the bill, so the kids get something to eat, and they could always come back, with some nuance they couldn't agree on the first time around.  Instead, they use that little sticking point to argue, and see that nothing gets done.

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: $1 Trillion tax increase

Here you go, Neb, enjoy watching the great GOP, stick it to the American people.

http://republicanjobcreation.com/

 

 

 

 

 

 

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: $1 Trillion tax increase

True - but before Bush and Cheney wanted to control the OIL and they blustered the freedom and liberty garbage, did you really give a rats about who killed who over there?  How come all of a sudden you cared about the Muslims and the communist/dictatorship there.  I didn't see any warm and cuddly little delegations travelling there each year to teach Hussein the error of his ways.  You lot were sucked in by the republican spin they put on the justificatiuon for the war.  Ask those soldiers from the US who died for no reason, do they care about a mob of ratbag towelheads gassing one another. Ask them do they now lie in peace knowing that freedom has been given to them.  Ask their parents do they give a sh-t about freedom in Iraq.

 

You cannot be that dumb to not know exactly what the war was about, but then again.

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: $1 Trillion tax increase

Not that the log wasn't a description of Congress as the author saw it, I still saw no mention of a single filibuster.
Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: $1 Trillion tax increase

They didn't really have to actually filabuster.  They only needed to THREATEN one and that ended any discussion.  Google it for yourself and read.

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: $1 Trillion tax increase

NO, it's easier to just play, deaf, dumb and blind! Handed it to him on a platter, and he still wants to find fault. What a joke.