So, it’s suicide or terrorism, then? Now we know how Sophie felt.

Republicans usually do commit political suicide………………….that’s the only way Democrats can possibly get elected. They sure can’t do it with a history of good results.

Republicans always play the part of “Charlie Brown” as a supporting role of sucker to the Democrat “Lucy.” “Stupid” will never be a match against “Evil.”

King Obama and his cronies , henchmen and minions scheme to get him reelected in order to really sock it to the country .

“Obama always talks about tough choices but never actually makes any. He talks about leadership but seldom provides it. Policy choices are looked at in political terms. Unfortunately, it’s a recipe for stalemate and inaction through November of next year.

Take our growing budget mess. The president proposed a budget in February that made no long-term impact on the deficit. It was voted down by the Senate 97-0. He’s rejected the House Republican budget but refuses to say how he would preserve and strengthen vital programs like Medicare, whose insolvency becomes more likely every year. With the debt ceiling vote looming, he gave Vice President Joe Biden the job of negotiating an agreement with skeptical Republicans and Democrats in Congress. He then flew off to other campaign stops.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58332.html#ixzz1RKZCQRx4

Pablo said:
So, it’s suicide or terrorism, then? Now we know how Sophie felt.

Pat’s been fighting the “culture war”, like Ailes, since the seventies so you certainly can not expect him to be backing down now. But like all the other old culture warriors, they refuse to accept the reality of the world economy which ships the “trickle down” part of the supply side equation for investment in China and other low cost economies. The only way to balance that is to raise taxes on those doing it.

If Obama and the Democrats wanted to raise taxes, they could have done it in December 2010. They didn’t, so now they should just stfu and start cutting spending.

Boy how many times do you think Pat Buchanan has used the phrase “the empire is coming down.” in his life. I don’t know anybody on either side that cares about anything Pat has said for over 10 years.

The Left is losing the economic argument… in fact, they never had an “argument” in the true sense of the word…

valkyrie101 said:
Pat’s been fighting the “culture war”, like Ailes, since the seventies so you certainly can not expect him to be backing down now. But like all the other old culture warriors, they refuse to accept the reality of the world economy which ships the “trickle down” part of the supply side equation for investment in China and other low cost economies. The only way to balance that is to raise taxes on those doing it.

This isn’t culture war. This is math.

The Left’s modus operandi:
Demand that Group A force Group B to give to Group C…

skoorbekim said:
The Left’s modus operandi:Demand that Group A force Group B to give to Group C…

Group A: American Corporations
Group B: American workers
Group C: China

American corporations lobby congress with millions to keep corporate taxes among the lowest in the world, then they take those savings and invest them in cheap labor, no regulation markets abroad, thereby eliminating jobs in the U.S.

Pablo said:
This isn’t culture war. This is math.

No, its more than that. For Buchanan and the other conservative culture warriors it is not math, it is principle. Problem is, the world is not flat.

Davo said:
Republicans always play the part of “Charlie Brown” as a supporting role of sucker to the Democrat “Lucy.” “Stupid” will never be a match against “Evil.”

obviously you haven’t been paying attention the last 31 years

bush II, alone, got everything he wanted *except* privatization of SS

valkyrie101 said:
American corporations lobby congress with millions to keep corporate taxes among the lowest in the world, then they take those savings and invest them in cheap labor, no regulation markets abroad, thereby eliminating jobs in the U.S.

thank you!!

skoorbekim said:
The Left is losing the economic argument… in fact, they never had an “argument” in the true sense of the word…

the “economic argument” is not about politics, it’s about math

the ONLY ways to reduce debt are: increased taxes and decreased spending

Azarkhan said:
If Obama and the Democrats wanted to raise taxes, they could have done it in December 2010. They didn’t, so now they should just stfu and start cutting spending.

irrelevant

I hope Republicans stand their ground and Obama blinks.  I hope the Republicans pass a bill with significant long term cuts in spending that extendes the debt ceiling with no tax increases for anybody and then sends it to Obama for signing.  Then, if he signes it, great, but if he vetos it he’ll be the one who caused us to default on our debt and he will be the one who will endure the wrath of the American people.

every economist has argued that raising taxes on the wealthy won’t effect
unemployment whatsoever

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/business/economy/03view.html

Dem4Ever said:
I hope Republicans stand their ground and Obama blinks.  I hope the Republicans pass a bill with significant long term cuts in spending that extendes the debt ceiling with no tax increases for anybody and then sends it to Obama for signing.  Then, if he signes it, great, but if he vetos it he’ll be the one who caused us to default on our debt and he will be the one who will endure the wrath of the American people.

even though, as you admit, the republicans “stood their ground” (i.e. acted stubbornly
and stupidly)?

valkyrie101 said:
Pat’s been fighting the “culture war”, like Ailes, since the seventies so you certainly can not expect him to be backing down now. But like all the other old culture warriors, they refuse to accept the reality of the world economy which ships the “trickle down” part of the supply side equation for investment in China and other low cost economies. The only way to balance that is to raise taxes on those doing it.

that’s what i say: punish the wealthy

and i say we go a step further: let’s indict and jail those who caused the crisis in the
first place

and even further than that: let’s go after cheney and rumsfeld and bush, and all those
criminals who got us into iraq

darladoon said:
the “economic argument” is not about politics, it’s about math the ONLY ways to reduce debt are: increased taxes and decreased spending

And even a 12 year old running a lemonade stand understands that.

Old saying ;

Those whose want to rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul .

Dem4Ever said:
I hope Republicans stand their ground and Obama blinks.  I hope the Republicans pass a bill with significant long term cuts in spending that extendes the debt ceiling with no tax increases for anybody and then sends it to Obama for signing.  Then, if he signes it, great, but if he vetos it he’ll be the one who caused us to default on our debt and he will be the one who will endure the wrath of the American people.

Are you dreaming?

Pablo said:
This isn’t culture war. This is math.

valkyrie101 said:
No, its more than that.

LOL

darladoon said:
the “economic argument” is not about politics, it’s about math

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

darladoon said:
that’s what i say: punish the wealthy
and i say we go a step further: let’s indict and jail those who caused the crisis in the
first place
and even further than that: let’s go after cheney and rumsfeld and bush, and all those
criminals who got us into iraq

LOLOLOLOLOLOLBwahAHAHAHahhaHAHhaHahaHhaha

The Lantern of Truth said:
Old saying ;

Those whose want to rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul .

of course by “rob” you mean “increase taxes on”

one is a crime, the other is perfectly normal/legal

and obviously george c has either been up all night partying, or he hasn’t woken up yet

what an ape

Sort of like lending your brother-in-law money, but he promises if you’ll just lend him some more, this time he’ll be responsible with it.

Perdido said:
Sort of like lending your brother-in-law money, but he promises if you’ll just lend him some more, this time he’ll be responsible with it.

it’s not like that at all

unless of course, your brother, for example, provides necessary health care to poor people

skoorbekim said:
The Left is losing the economic argument… in fact, they never had an “argument” in the true sense of the word…

Yeah, because everyone wants rich people to keep getting rich.

darladoon, if it’s not like that at all, how do we keep getting in debt?

at least the “left” realizes that spending cuts and tax increases are both effective options

the right is hellbent on the former, and completely ignoring the latter

Perdido said:
darladoon, if it’s not like that at all, how do we keep getting in debt?

lots of reasons. but you seem to think that the government has a crack addiction.

the only crack-addicted spending our government does is: iraq/afghanistan

i think domestic spending is essential, foreign aid is essential, etc

but we need to stop the wars, and raise taxes for starters

If the left feels their taxes aren’t high enough already, they should volunteer to pay more.

Corporate Jet Tax Break = No Meat Inspection !

Oil and Gas Subsidies = No National Weather Service !

“Americans are once again being confronted with irresponsible demagoguery unleashed by the President of the United States. Mr. Obama, in a truly despicable effort to maintain his and his party’s supremacy (which is the power of the purse), spared no rhetoric in his recent press conference to exploit class envy as a means of garnering votes.

Unfortunately this approach plays well among the less enlightened and Obama’s left-wing base, in the thrall of class warfare. Enflaming passions and potential violence solely to keep the Democrats and their allies in power. The reality is these Obama talking points will not solve but will instead exacerbate the current economic woes the country is experiencing.”

“Obama and the Democrats, in league with the Unions and the radical Left, continue berating the so-called wealthy, their mantra the need to make the rich pay their fair share. Their diatribes do not offer a viable solution to the country’s fiscal woes. It serves their purpose of dividing the people against each other to maintain their power base. Their actions and words are despicable and will only serve to dramatically reduce, over time, the American standard of living.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/obamas_class_warfare_harms_america.html

The Lantern of Truth said:
Corporate Jet Tax Break = No Meat Inspection !

Oil and Gas Subsidies = No National Weather Service !

“Americans are once again being confronted with irresponsible demagoguery unleashed by the President of the United States. Mr. Obama, in a truly despicable effort to maintain his and his party’s supremacy (which is the power of the purse), spared no rhetoric in his recent press conference to exploit class envy as a means of garnering votes.

Unfortunately this approach plays well among the less enlightened and Obama’s left-wing base, in the thrall of class warfare. Enflaming passions and potential violence solely to keep the Democrats and their allies in power. The reality is these Obama talking points will not solve but will instead exacerbate the current economic woes the country is experiencing.”

“Obama and the Democrats, in league with the Unions and the radical Left, continue berating the so-called wealthy, their mantra the need to make the rich pay their fair share. Their diatribes do not offer a viable solution to the country’s fiscal woes. It serves their purpose of dividing the people against each other to maintain their power base. Their actions and words are despicable and will only serve to dramatically reduce, over time, the American standard of living.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/obamas_class_warfare_harms_america.html

yeah, obama’s “in league” with the “radical left” (lol)

Perdido said:
If the left feels their taxes aren’t high enough already, they should volunteer to pay more.

that’s not how it works.

The RIght: Kill everyone, keep us save…AND we don’t have to pay for it.

you gotta love these pathetic mediaite commenters, who DEFEND the ultra-wealthy
from ridiculously mild (and temporary) tax increases

I can’t believe how poor the average American is and they are FIGHTING for the rich to keep all of their money.

Most of you idiots will NEVER make $250,000 in your lives in one year and yet you’re fighting for these rich people to keep an extra few percentages.

What do you think they are going to do for you since you fight for them? Do you think they are going to reward you? Do you think there is going to be something in it for you?

HAHAHAHAHAHHA….

Oh, we need them to create jobs.

No, in order to create jobs we NEED lending. All you need to get a business loan is good credit (PAY YOUR BILLS) a good business plan (KNOW WHAT YOU’RE DOING) and experience and someone to believe in you (AKA PERSERVERANCE).

Pablo said:
This isn’t culture war. This is math.

valkyrie101 said:
No, its more than that.

LOL

darladoon said:
the “economic argument” is not about politics, it’s about math

valkyrie101 said:
And even a 12 year old running a lemonade stand understands that.

Sweet Jesus .

darladoon said:
that’s what i say: punish the wealthy
and i say we go a step further: let’s indict and jail those who caused the crisis in the
first place
and even further than that: let’s go after cheney and rumsfeld and bush, and all those
criminals who got us into iraq

darladoon said:
the “economic argument” is not about politics, it’s about math

LOL Thanks for the laughs this morning guys .

you gotta love these pathetic mediaite commenters, who can’t even keep track of their own inane ramblings

darladoon said:
you gotta love these pathetic mediaite commenters, who DEFEND the ultra-wealthyfrom ridiculously mild (and temporary) tax increases

Wow, were were thinking the same thing at the same time.

These people are stupid and poor and stupid.

Barry Bonds said:
I can’t believe how poor the average American is and they are FIGHTING for the rich to keep all of their money.

Most of you idiots will NEVER make $250,000 in your lives in one year and yet you’re fighting for these rich people to keep an extra few percentages.

What do you think they are going to do for you since you fight for them? Do you think they are going to reward you? Do you think there is going to be something in it for you?

HAHAHAHAHAHHA….

Oh, we need them to create jobs.

No, in order to create jobs we NEED lending. All you need to get a business loan is good credit (PAY YOUR BILLS) a good business plan (KNOW WHAT YOU’RE DOING) and experience and someone to believe in you (AKA PERSERVERANCE).

you don’t understand, they need an *additional* tax cut to keep their corporate jets

that’s vitally important to create jobs

and george c,

can you tell us why tax increases are not a good idea right now?

give us something we can sink our teeth into.

Pat your opinion and the radicals are killing our Republican Party, we will not win the White House, because you and the radicals are wrong, Pat shut up

The Lantern of Truth said:
Unfortunately this approach plays well among the less enlightened and Obama’s left-wing base,

How many of the original O.J. Simpson jurors later voted for Obama ?

Every single one of them .

darladoon said:
that’s not how it works.

If you want to give them more, they’ll gladly take it from you.

Otherwise, just admit that it’s “I don’t want to have to pay more, but I hate my neighbor, so he needs to be stripped of everything he’s got!”

so, those defending against tax increases are to the right of:

reagan’s budget director *and* bush’s budget director

and the ultra-radical-lefty……..jim cramer

In the seventies, England really put the screws to their rich. They just moved to other countries. How would you prevent our rich from doing that?

Kitsune said:
If you want to give them more, they’ll gladly take it from you.

Otherwise, just admit that it’s “I don’t want to have to pay more, but I hate my neighbor, so he needs to be stripped of everything he’s got!”

i just love how conservatives utilize these ridiculous analogies to argue against
tax increases: “i hate my neighbor”? wtf?

it has *nothing* to do with hate. it has to do with increased revenue to pay for
the things that we all enjoy or need.

i presume you hate national parks, based on your idiotic and puerile defense
of ballooning deficits.

Perdido said:
In the seventies, England really put the screws to their rich. They just moved to other countries. How would you prevent our rich from doing that?

yeah, and the democrats are calling for a 80% tax rate?!

they’re asking for a few percentage points.

you seem to forget, dude, that reagan’s tax rates were HIGHER than obama’s.

and reagan’s estate tax rate was……..wait for it………60%!

are you to the right of reagan?

The Lantern of Truth said:
How many of the original O.J. Simpson jurors later voted for Obama ?

Every single one of them .

gee, great point. i’m gonna take my vitamins and reflect on that profundity.

darladoon, I don’t care if it’s a Democrat or a Republican in office. They both waste money, they both got us in debt, and their solution is for us to give them more. It’s like enabling a drug addict.

darladoon said:

can you tell us why tax increases are not a good idea right now?

give us something we can sink our teeth into.

The problem is pretending that tax increases and budget cuts are equal. They are not. An irresponsible spender is irresponsible no matter how much money they have. Give this government another 20 trillion today and they will not use that money to pay off debt and start from scratch. They will say that the debt is paid but pass new bills that spend that same money in the future instead of paying down debts. This isn’t a partisan problem. Almost all of the politicians do this whenever they have the chance. Until spending is under control nothing changes. Then it would be a great time to examine tax increases because we will be able to accurately judge their efficacy. What is your case for the two being equal or tax increases being more important?

And correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t NAFTA the reason why corporations can so easily take their money overseas for cheap labor?

Perdido said:
darladoon, I don’t care if it’s a Democrat or a Republican in office. They both waste money, they both got us in debt, and their solution is for us to give them more. It’s like enabling a drug addict.

so you don’t think there any sensible solutions to increasing revenue?

atreyue said:
The problem is pretending that tax increases and budget cuts are equal. They are not. An irresponsible spender is irresponsible no matter how much money they have. Give this government another 20 trillion today and they will not use that money to pay off debt and start from scratch. They will say that the debt is paid but pass new bills that spend that same money in the future instead of paying down debts. This isn’t a partisan problem. Almost all of the politicians do this whenever they have the chance. Until spending is under control nothing changes. Then it would be a great time to examine tax increases because we will be able to accurately judge their efficacy. What is your case for the two being equal or tax increases being more important?

And correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t NAFTA the reason why corporations can so easily take their money overseas for cheap labor?

i didn’t say they were equal. i said they were both effective at reducing debt.

which they are.

i, for one, have not succumb to deficit hysteria.

the money didn’t disappear. the wealthy are sitting on it and not investing in
america.

we need to go after those people. they are not loyal our country. they are
a new kind of anti-american.

Rarely do we get a juxtaposition of stories like we see today about California’s political class. The legislature returned from the Independence Day holiday to address the pressing, acute issue that has the state in crisis mode — the lack of mention in schools of accomplishments by gays and lesbians…

Meanwhile, the minor, multibillion-dollar problem in budgeting still threatens to push California into default. The Los Angeles Times reports that one reason California can’t pay its bills is because more than 1400 of its employees make over $200,000 per year, putting them into the same range as a Vice President of the United States. One prison doctor pulls down more than three quarters of a million dollars each year…

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/06/ca-legislature-passes-gay-history-mandate-as-the-ship-sinks/

darladoon said:
gee, great point. i’m gonna take my vitamins and reflect on that profundity.

Very shocked that you don’t get it .

darladoon, when you stop wasting money, you’ll have more left in your pocket. You don’t reduce your debt by taking out a loan to pay it off. Given all of our politicians past history, what’s making you think that if we give them more money, this time it will be different?

Azarkhan said:
Rarely do we get a juxtaposition of stories like we see today about California’s political class. The legislature returned from the Independence Day holiday to address the pressing, acute issue that has the state in crisis mode — the lack of mention in schools of accomplishments by gays and lesbians…

Meanwhile, the minor, multibillion-dollar problem in budgeting still threatens to push California into default. The Los Angeles Times reports that one reason California can’t pay its bills is because more than 1400 of its employees make over $200,000 per year, putting them into the same range as a Vice President of the United States. One prison doctor pulls down more than three quarters of a million dollars each year…

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/06/ca-legislature-passes-gay-history-mandate-as-the-ship-sinks/

you do realize that the legislature can do many things in one day.

and 1400 employees is not very many, in a state of over 35 million

darladoon said:
we need to go after those people. they are not loyal our country. they are
a new kind of anti-american

darladoon surprised there’s no ObamaMoney left from his stash .

darladoon said:
i, for one, have not succumb to deficit hysteria.

the money didn’t disappear. the wealthy are sitting on it and not investing in
america.

we need to go after those people. they are not loyal our country. they are
a new kind of anti-american.

heres a thought, why dont you go make some money and just pay more. then you wont have to worry about what other people are doing and mind your own f’ing business…

darladoon said:

i didn’t say they were equal. i said they were both effective at reducing debt.

which they are.

If spending isn’t kept in check and reduced, then tax increases are not effective at all. First you cut spending and then you can figure out how much money you need. Am I wrong? The government needs to prove to the American public that they are cutting spending before it gets more money to play with. The democrats are claiming that they can’t cut until more revenue is given, which is patently ridiculous. Please prioritize these two issues for me.

Perdido said:
darladoon, when you stop wasting money, you’ll have more left in your pocket. You don’t reduce your debt by taking out a loan to pay it off. Given all of our politicians past history, what’s making you think that if we give them more money, this time it will be different?

we have ample historical precedent for higher tax rates

the empirical data is robust

higher tax rates on the upper 2% create the conditions for a stronger middle
class (which means a stronger economy)

i’m so glad to see you defend the wealthiest people in the world, and not your friends
family and neighbors.

atreyue said:
If spending isn’t kept in check and reduced, then tax increases are not effective at all. First you cut spending and then you can figure out how much money you need. Am I wrong? The government needs to prove to the American public that they are cutting spending before it gets more money to play with. The democrats are claiming that they can’t cut until more revenue is given, which is patently ridiculous. Please prioritize these two issues for me.

a deficit reduction package is pointless without two things:

a) increased revenue

b) decreased spending

you fundamentally distrust the fact that politicians will use the increased revenue
for some other purpose other than paying down the debt.

i disagree with that.

darladoon said:
the “economic argument” is not about politics, it’s about math

darladoon said:
that’s what i say: punish the wealthy
and i say we go a step further: let’s indict and jail those who caused the crisis in the
first place
and even further than that: let’s go after cheney and rumsfeld and bush, and all those
criminals who got us into iraq

darladoon said:
i, for one, have not succumb to deficit hysteria.
the money didn’t disappear. the wealthy are sitting on it and not investing in
america.
we need to go after those people. they are not loyal our country. they are
a new kind of anti-american.

George C said:
you gotta love these pathetic mediaite commenters, who can’t even keep track of their own inane ramblings

Word !

jddoubleu said:
heres a thought, why dont you go make some money and just pay more. then you wont have to worry about what other people are doing and mind your own f’ing business…

that’s the dumbest comment i’ve read in years

SuperStar said:
Word !

do you actually have an argument against repealing the corporate jet tax loophole?

i’d love to hear it.

darladoon said:
Perdido said:
darladoon, when you stop wasting money, you’ll have more left in your pocket. You don’t reduce your debt by taking out a loan to pay it off. Given all of our politicians past history, what’s making you think that if we give them more money, this time it will be different?

we have ample historical precedent for higher tax rates

the empirical data is robust

Perdido is saying that we can’t trust the politicians to not raise spending to keep the ratio between revenue & spending the same as it is now (or make it worse) if revenue is increased. There is certainly ample historical precedent for what he says.

darladoon said:
that’s the dumbest comment i’ve read in years

you should reread your posts. id love to hear your reasons why what people do with their money IS ANY OF YOUR F’ING BUSINESS…

darladoon said:
i just love how conservatives utilize these ridiculous analogies to argue againsttax increases: “i hate my neighbor”? wtf? it has *nothing* to do with hate. it has to do with increased revenue to pay forthe things that we all enjoy or need. i presume you hate national parks, based on your idiotic and puerile defenseof ballooning deficits.

Mainly because Progressive Policy has never been about anything but “Punishing” those who aren’t “in” for the revolution. It’s always been a completely asinine “with us or against us” ideology bent on firmly entrenching an “elite” ruling class (that everyone whose spent any time in college is promised they’ll be a part of if they just get with the program, that they’ll get to lord over the “unwashed masses”, though in reality, they can forget it if they weren’t in an Ivy League school), and portraying anyone who didn’t buy in as white racist, inbred, bible-thumping hillbillies. Even those who aren’t white, racist, inbred, or religious. Hell, even those who aren’t even Republicans, as long as they haven’t bought in.

One HUGE place you have to look, when cutting spending, is the salaries that lawmakers make, and also what public union Bosses are making. Nobody getting paid with taxpayer money should be making more than $100,000 a year. Congressmen shouldn’t even be getting THAT much.

Am I saying there should be absolutely no taxes at all? Not the way things are currently structured. But I sure as hell don’t trust the federal government to not just spend any “increased revenue” on pet re-election projects and special interests like they have time and time and time and time and time before.

atreyue said:
Perdido is saying that we can’t trust the politicians to not raise spending to keep the ratio between revenue & spending the same as it is now (or make it worse) if revenue is increased. There is certainly ample historical precedent for what he says.

give me an example of that ample historical precedent.

reagan, bush, and clinton all had higher effective tax rates.

and the latter balanced the budget.

jddoubleu said:
you should reread your posts. id love to hear your reasons why what people do with their money IS ANY OF YOUR F’ING BUSINESS…

second dumbest comment i’ve read in a long, long time

only in the land of conservatives is returning our tax rates to reagan-era levels is

“Progressive”

i can only shake my head and wonder why we don’t teach history anymore….

darladoon said:
a deficit reduction package is pointless without two things:

a) increased revenue

b) decreased spending

you fundamentally distrust the fact that politicians will use the increased revenue
for some other purpose other than paying down the debt.

i disagree with that.

And why do you disagree? The already use the revenue for some other purpose other than paying down the debt. And your initial claim is false, because a or b will reduce the deficit if the other is kept constant. So if only one can be done, then the question becomes which is more important? Or to put it another way, which is the bigger problem that needs fixing?

darladoon said:
do you actually have an argument against repealing the corporate jet tax loophole?
i’d love to hear it.

LOL . A better starting point for you would be to limit your number of contridictions on one thread . Troll someone else .

ObamaZombies not dumb at all .

When Obama invited the doctors who said they supported his Obamacare plan to the White House , he lined them up in the yard and passed out white jackets so his Dem base would know they were real doctors !

Get your Chevy Volt now !

If reelected , Obama planning Cash for Electric Clunkers in 2013 .

darladoon said:
second dumbest comment i’ve read in a long, long time

well you convinced me, everyone should now cc: darla their tax forms for pre-government approval…

atreyue said:
And why do you disagree? The already use the revenue for some other purpose other than paying down the debt. And your initial claim is false, because a or b will reduce the deficit if the other is kept constant. So if only one can be done, then the question becomes which is more important? Or to put it another way, which is the bigger problem that needs fixing?

i want to return to reagan-era or clinton-era tax rates.

the question of what our Elected Politicans do with the increased revenue will
be closely scrutinized.

but you can’t argue against 1 of 2 options for deficit reduction just because
you don’t trust someone. that’s inane.

SuperStar said:
LOL . A better starting point for you would be to limit your number of contridictions on one thread . Troll someone else .

show me one contradiction. and let’s keep the topic on topic. tax increases.

jddoubleu said:
well you convinced me, everyone should now cc: darla their tax forms for pre-government approval…

gee that’s sooooooo funny, bro! man, you’ve hit the hot spot today!

darladoon said:
gee that’s sooooooo funny, bro! man, you’ve hit the hot spot today!

im so happy that people like you will die off when we defund these govt. programs. i love social darwinism!!

darladoon said:
show me one contradiction. and let’s keep the topic on topic. tax increases.

LOL . George pointed them out twice , I did once . You responded with personal insults . Troll someone else .

jddoubleu said:
im so happy that people like you will die off when we defund these govt. programs. i love social darwinism!!

i hope your mother and grandmother die, too

darladoon said:
give me an example of that ample historical precedent.

reagan, bush, and clinton all had higher effective tax rates.

and the latter balanced the budget.

Clinton balanced the budget and passed NAFTA at the same time. NAFTA allowed US companies to export jobs to other countries for cheap labor, which predictably took money out of the US economy, which will continue to hemorrhage until NAFTA is repealed or the us pay rate becomes competitive with India’s and China’s. Clinton & his economists knew this when they passed that legislation, but they were far more concerned with giving a handout to their corporate buddies that would save them far more money than any tax cut could. Deferring costs is a very common practice in our government.

SuperStar said:
LOL . George pointed them out twice , I did once . You responded with personal insults . Troll someone else .

uh, george “pointed out” that i put forth two ideas, not contradictory at all:

a) increase taxes

b) indict those who caused the economic crisis

hardly contradictory

darladoon said:
i hope your mother and grandmother die, too

sorry pal, they are set up and (very comfortably) for the rest of their lives…

atreyue said:
Clinton balanced the budget and passed NAFTA at the same time. NAFTA allowed US companies to export jobs to other countries for cheap labor, which predictably took money out of the US economy, which will continue to hemorrhage until NAFTA is repealed or the us pay rate becomes competitive with India’s and China’s. Clinton & his economists knew this when they passed that legislation, but they were far more concerned with giving a handout to their corporate buddies that would save them far more money than any tax cut could. Deferring costs is a very common practice in our government.

i agree with this.

but i still want to know why you think increasing taxes on millionaires and billionaires
will not help at all.

jddoubleu said:
sorry pal, they are set up and (very comfortably) for the rest of their lives…

by “set up” you mean……they’ll never, ever, ever have any health problems?

interesting. they must be aliens.

darladoon said:
by “set up” you mean……they’ll never, ever, ever have any health problems?

interesting. they must be aliens.

no just good genes. if they were struck with something so horrible that it wiped out their vast holdings they wouldnt want to live with it anyway. were you a sickly child?

Again, if we really stick it to that top 2%, what’s to prevent them from moving elsewhere? Going to lock them up too?

jddoubleu said:
no just good genes. if they were struck with something so horrible that it wiped out their vast holdings they wouldnt want to live with it anyway. were you a sickly child?

everyone needs a doctor, dude. everyone. at some point.

you’re just being a typical conservative with this grandiose idea that he’ll
never, ever need to ask for help from anyone.

if you have an insurance policy (and i presume your mother does), then
you’re asking for help.

atreyue said:
Clinton balanced the budget

Now let us contrast this with the Clinton fiscal record. Recall that it was the Clinton White House that fought Republicans every inch of the way in balancing the budget in 1995. When Republicans proposed their own balanced-budget plan, the White House waged a shameless Mediscare campaign to torpedo the plan — a campaign that the Washington Post slammed as “pure demagoguery.” It was Bill Clinton who, during the big budget fight in 1995, had to submit not one, not two, but five budgets until he begrudgingly matched the GOP’s balanced-budget plan. In fact, during the height of the budget wars in the summer of 1995, the Clinton administration admitted that “balancing the budget is not one of our top priorities.”

And lest we forget, it was Bill Clinton and his wife who tried to engineer a federal takeover of the health care system — a plan that would have sent the government’s finances into the stratosphere. Tom Delay was right: for Clinton to take credit for the balanced budget is like Chicago Cubs pitcher Steve Trachsel taking credit for delivering the pitch to Mark McGuire that he hit out of the park for his 62nd home run.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5656

The idea that Clinton balanced the budget is just another Democratic big lie. It is so ridiculous that only a moron like Darla Loon would fall for it.

Perdido said:
Again, if we really stick it to that top 2%, what’s to prevent them from moving elsewhere? Going to lock them up too?

good, move elsewhere.

and btw, that’s a horrible argument.

they argued that would happen in california. it didn’t.

they argued that would happen in massachusetts, it didn’t.

And California having the highest taxes really bailed it out, didn’t it?

darladoon said:
i want to return to reagan-era or clinton-era tax rates.

the question of what our Elected Politicans do with the increased revenue will
be closely scrutinized.

but you can’t argue against 1 of 2 options for deficit reduction just because
you don’t trust someone. that’s inane.

show me one contradiction. and let’s keep the topic on topic. tax increases.

Prioritizing isn’t the same thing as arguing against. It’s sound economics on both the individual and the government level that the first thing you need to do in order to balance your budget is figure out how much you are spending and how much revenue you have. We know exactly how much revenue we have and have no idea how much we are spending. Therefore the 1st step is to nail down that exact number (including future spending) and then formulate a plan of attack that makes sense. Yet the government refuses to even generate a budget for THIS year. How can they claim (and you believe) that they are planning for the future?

Azarkhan said:
Now let us contrast this with the Clinton fiscal record. Recall that it was the Clinton White House that fought Republicans every inch of the way in balancing the budget in 1995. When Republicans proposed their own balanced-budget plan, the White House waged a shameless Mediscare campaign to torpedo the plan — a campaign that the Washington Post slammed as “pure demagoguery.” It was Bill Clinton who, during the big budget fight in 1995, had to submit not one, not two, but five budgets until he begrudgingly matched the GOP’s balanced-budget plan. In fact, during the height of the budget wars in the summer of 1995, the Clinton administration admitted that “balancing the budget is not one of our top priorities.”

And lest we forget, it was Bill Clinton and his wife who tried to engineer a federal takeover of the health care system — a plan that would have sent the government’s finances into the stratosphere. Tom Delay was right: for Clinton to take credit for the balanced budget is like Chicago Cubs pitcher Steve Trachsel taking credit for delivering the pitch to Mark McGuire that he hit out of the park for his 62nd home run.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5656

The idea that Clinton balanced the budget is just another Democratic big lie. It is so ridiculous that only a moron like Darla Loon would fall for it.

it’s easy to gang up on me. very easy. i’m the only liberal here.

now, let me turn the tables on you: give me one reason why we shouldn’t increase
taxes on the upper 2%.

ONE practical reason.

nobody here has put forth a single reason other than “i don’t trust politicians to actually
pay down the debt”

darladoon said:
everyone needs a doctor, dude. everyone. at some point.

you’re just being a typical conservative with this grandiose idea that he’ll
never, ever need to ask for help from anyone.

if you have an insurance policy (and i presume your mother does), then
you’re asking for help.

wow, just wow…
can you rephrase this so it makes even the tiniest bit of sense?

atreyue said:
Prioritizing isn’t the same thing as arguing against. It’s sound economics on both the individual and the government level that the first thing you need to do in order to balance your budget is figure out how much you are spending and how much revenue you have. We know exactly how much revenue we have and have no idea how much we are spending. Therefore the 1st step is to nail down that exact number (including future spending) and then formulate a plan of attack that makes sense. Yet the government refuses to even generate a budget for THIS year. How can they claim (and you believe) that they are planning for the future?

fair enough.

but you still haven’t put forth a practical argument against tax increases other than
you don’t trust politicians to handle the revenue in a responsible way.

how is that a good argument? you don’t trust them?

the republicans control the House, btw

do you not trust them either?

How much money do you think that top 2% have? If we took every dime, it wouldn’t be a drop in the bucket next to the national debt.

jddoubleu said:
wow, just wow…
can you rephrase this so it makes even the tiniest bit of sense?

you pretend your mother is:

A) healthy forever

B) will never need help from anyone

does she receive social security? does she receive electricity or water?

or is she living off the grid entirely, with no help from anyone?

Perdido said:
How much money do you think that top 2% have? If we took every dime, it wouldn’t be a drop in the bucket next to the national debt.

it would be a HUGE drop in the bucket. it would cover the debt many times over.

http://www.mybudget360.com/top-1-percent-control-42-percent-of-financial-wealth-in-the-us-how-average-americans-are-lured-into-debt-servitude-by-promises-of-mega-wealth/

Hold strong to your delusional beliefs Pat, they’ve served you and your party so well.

darladoon said:
it’s easy to gang up on me. very easy. i’m the only liberal here.

It’s easy because you never present any references or links to back up your comments.

darladoon said:
now, let me turn the tables on you: give me one reason why we shouldn’t increase
taxes on the upper 2%.

I have no problem with raising taxes, as long as for every dollar raised at least three dollars is cut from spending. BTW, the corporate jet tax only raises $3 billion over 10 years. The 2011 deficit alone is $1.6 Trillion.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-29/jet-tax-break-cited-six-times-by-obama-would-cut-debt-by-about-3-billion.html

darladoon said:
nobody here has put forth a single reason other than “i don’t trust politicians to actually
pay down the debt”

Based on past performance, that’s a valid reason.

darladoon, there are a relative handful of billionaires in the country. The national debt is around 15 trillion. Do you realize the difference between a billion and a trillion?

Azarkhan said:
It’s easy because you never present any references or links to back up your comments.

I have no problem with raising taxes, as long as for every dollar raised at least three dollars is cut from spending. BTW, the corporate jet tax only raises $3 billion over 10 years. The 2011 deficit alone is $1.6 Trillion.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-29/jet-tax-break-cited-six-times-by-obama-would-cut-debt-by-about-3-billion.html

every little bit helps. you can’t say you want to pay down the debt and maintain an
egregious corporate jet tax loophole for billionaires. that’s a major, major contradiction.

i presume you want to cut some social programs? well, how many of those cost
more than 3 billion annual?

Perdido said:
darladoon, there are a relative handful of billionaires in the country. The national debt is around 15 trillion. Do you realize the difference between a billion and a trillion?

if you took all the money from every american billionaire?

they have a 42% stake in the economy.

do the math

So you think we should do like Castro and just take everything they have. How’d that work out for Cuba? Aren’t people trying to get out of there all the time?

SuperStar said:
LOL . George pointed them out twice , I did once . You responded with personal insults . Troll someone else .

Yup .

darladoon said:
i agree with this.

but i still want to know why you think increasing taxes on millionaires and billionaires
will not help at all.

It’s all about prioritizing, first off. I think that you agree that:
a) increasing revenue does nothing if spending is also increased
b) decreasing spending does nothing if taxes are also decreased.

So if nothing changes, then things stay the same; but since we’re already in deficit, staying the same is a bad thing. Not many are calling for lower taxes, so that’s not a concern. We don’t know how much is being spent currently or is planned for in the future with any degree of accuracy because the government refuses to make a budget. The Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya wars continue to be a drain we can’t afford and we continue to promise future money for social programs that are already running in the negative.

Your solution is to tax the class that appears to be making out like bandits to recoup the money they aren’t putting back into the economy. My problem with your solution is that it isn’t a solution, it’s a band-aid. In order to solve a problem, you have to address the issues that caused it. If regulation/deregulation caused the problem, the only real solution is to change the regulation, for example. Why should Will Smith have to pay more money to cover the amount that Wells Fargo managed to steal? That’s hardly fair. Why is this a solution that the politicians propose? I think it’s because they all know that Wells Fargo stole far more than increased taxes would require them to give back, so it’s still a win for their corporate buddies.

darladoon said:
the republicans control the House, btw do you not trust them either?

And they still pretty much have to give Harry Reid anything he wants, or he’ll just have the Senate reject anything they pass. Their hands are pretty much tied.

And even if they weren’t, I doubt you could get them to agree on anything at this point. “Ruling Class” Rs would do the same things as the Ds would do with it.

darladoon said:
every little bit helps. you can’t say you want to pay down the debt and maintain an
egregious corporate jet tax loophole

Agreed. All loopholes should be closed in the tax code.

darladoon said:
i presume you want to cut some social programs? well, how many of those cost
more than 3 billion annual?

A better question is how many cost LESS than $3 billion? When you find out let me know.

darladoon said:
you pretend your mother is:

A) healthy forever

B) will never need help from anyone

does she receive social security? does she receive electricity or water?

or is she living off the grid entirely, with no help from anyone?

her heathcare is taken care of and she has plenty of money to pay her own bills. man what world do you live in?

Perdido said:
So you think we should do like Castro and just take everything they have. How’d that work out for Cuba? Aren’t people trying to get out of there all the time?

who in the american government is making the proposition?

jddoubleu said:
her heathcare is taken care of and she has plenty of money to pay her own bills. man what world do you live in?

and if she has her healthcare “taken care of” i presume she ONLY uses private
hospitals, and private roads to get there, and private transportation? what an amazing
woman!

Azarkhan said:
Agreed. All loopholes should be closed in the tax code.

A better question is how many cost LESS than $3 billion? When you find out let me know.

do you think this is a good or bad program?

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2226

and i’m STILL waiting on george c to enage the actual ideas put forth here, from the left
and the right. so far, he’s standing on the sidelines like a frightened 3rd stringer.

darladoon said:
fair enough.

but you still haven’t put forth a practical argument against tax increases other than
you don’t trust politicians to handle the revenue in a responsible way.

how is that a good argument? you don’t trust them?

the republicans control the House, btw

do you not trust them either?

I don’t trust the democrats or the republicans. It’s just that right now the repubs know their base is watching them carefully. I’m sure they hope that once they post a victory or two, their loyalists/apologists will go back to paying no attention and choosing their team like when Bush was in office.The problem is that I’m not arguing against tax increases. I’m arguing that spending needs to be dealt with first. Right now, it’s all just lip service. They know that anything they do spending-wise can be undone with time.

And my argument about not being able to trust politicians to handle the revenue in a responsible way is certainly a practical argument. After all, you want to tax corporations and the rich more for the exact same reason, don’t you? You certainly don’t appear to trust them or repubs to be responsible stewards.

darladoon said:
george c to enage the actual ideas put forth here, from the left
and the right. so far, he’s standing on the sidelines like a frightened 3rd stringer.

No go . Troll someone else darla . LOL

George C said:
No go . Troll someone else darla . LOL

i’m engaging actual ideas and arguments.

you’re still standing on the sidelines, timid and lacking confidence.

atreyue said:
And my argument about not being able to trust politicians to handle the revenue in a responsible way is certainly a practical argument. After all, you want to tax corporations and the rich more for the exact same reason, don’t you? You certainly don’t appear to trust them or repubs to be responsible stewards.

i want to tax the rich and corporations to raise revenue.

we can afford to.

darladoon said:
do you think this is a good or bad program?

“Good or bad” doesn’t matter. Every federal program is eventually going to have to be cut, including food stamps.

darladoon said:
and if she has her healthcare “taken care of” i presume she ONLY uses private
hospitals, and private roads to get there, and private transportation? what an amazing
woman!

why would she do that? her gas taxes pay for roads, and the taxes shes paid her whole life paid for all that other stuff you list. we are supposed to pay for stuff and not use it because we planned and earned enough money to not rely on govt programs? roads and hospitals are only for the people on the govt tit? /facepalm

darladoon said:
i want to tax the rich and corporations to raise revenue.

we can afford to.

We can afford to raise taxes on everyone, I’m sure. Historically, they’ve been higher for all classes, right?

darladoon, didn’t your earlier post ask what if we took all the money from every billionaire?

Azarkhan said:
“Good or bad” doesn’t matter. Every federal program is eventually going to have to be cut, including food stamps.

not every federal program is going to be cut. that’s ridiculous.

food stamps are the most effective use of federal money that exists.

for every $1 the gov spends, $3 goes into the economy immediately.

atreyue said:
We can afford to raise taxes on everyone, I’m sure. Historically, they’ve been higher for all classes, right?

not everyone. i wouldn’t raise taxes on those making less than 50,000

Perdido said:
darladoon, didn’t your earlier post ask what if we took all the money from every billionaire?

i didn’t ask that. i responded to it.

jddoubleu said:
why would she do that? her gas taxes pay for roads, and the taxes shes paid her whole life paid for all that other stuff you list. we are supposed to pay for stuff and not use it because we planned and earned enough money to not rely on govt programs? roads and hospitals are only for the people on the govt tit? /facepalm

if she has ever used a public hospital, then your entire point is bunk.

darladoon said:
and i’m STILL waiting on george c to enage the actual ideas put forth here, from the left
and the right. so far, he’s standing on the sidelines like a frightened 3rd stringer.

darladoon said:
i’m engaging actual ideas and arguments.
you’re still standing on the sidelines, timid and lacking confidence

“Whether accusing someone else, or defending themselves, trolls appeal almost exclusively to emotion and will do everything they can to get you angry at the other party.”

LOL . No go darla .

I guess the question mark threw me.

darladoon said:
not everyone. i wouldn’t raise taxes on those making less than 50,000

You wouldn’t, but we can afford to.

The Lantern of Truth said:
How many of the original O.J. Simpson jurors later voted for Obama ? Every single one of them .

Wow, I knew the issue would somehow be Obamas fault I just couldn’t see this one coming.

darladoon said:
if she has ever used a public hospital, then your entire point is bunk.

how do people this stupid even learn to turn on a computer?

George C said:
No go . Troll someone else darla . LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMEe7JqBgvg

darladoon said:
every little bit helps. you can’t say you want to pay down the debt and maintain an
egregious corporate jet tax loophole for billionaires. that’s a major, major contradiction.

You mean the egregious jet tax loophole that was in Obama’s stimulus? That one?

darladoon said:
if you took all the money from every american billionaire?

they have a 42% stake in the economy.

do the math

Yes, let’s do the math.

Now, tell me, by what right or law would you take all their money from them? What would justify that for you, the simple fact that they have it and you want it? Do you know what that makes you?

And would that include liberal billionaires like George Soros, Bill Gates, and Oprah? Or just the bad ones?

You mean they would have to confront their constituents and Grover Norquist, not the majority of Americans, as every pole supports an increase in taxes for the top tier. The President has the public on his side on this, and if he gives in he has a problem. He’s just spinning this as if the Republicans are in the drivers seat, and they aren’t.

Hang in there Darladoon, you’re fighting the good fight against a bunch of folks who do not have a clue what’s really happening with our economy. Why is it they think you can take everything from the working poor, elderly, the sick and disabled while leaving CEOs who’ve gotten 23% pay raises the last two years untouched? For a generation businesses paid 64% of their costs in worker wages and benefits while today those costs are barely 57% for those same businesses. The majority of American fortune 500 companies pay either nothing or very little in taxes and the 400 most wealthy Americans pay only 16% in taxes on average annually. Exxon/Mobil is making 5 million dollars per hour in profit every hour of every day, while the oil industry as a whole has made more than 1 trillion in the last decade. Yet, none of them can bear a single dime more in taxes according to republicans…..NONSENSE!

Pablo
“Now, tell me, by what right or law would you take all their money from them?”

It’s something called “the United States Constitution.”

Tedderman, you’re getting it twisted. darladoon was first arguing for taxes to go up on everyone, and didn’t specify only raising them for the rich. And if you are only going to up taxes on the rich, she never answered questions such as what would simply keep the rich from relocating?

I believe Darladoon had it right in the first place, even if she had mistakenly said so, because there has to be shared sacrifice. We’ve had men and women in uniform, fighting for our freedom since Sept. 2001 who’ve bourn a disproportionate share of the burdon for our freedom. George. W. Bush asked Americans to “go shopping” as a shared sacrifice which is why we’re where at today. Tax cut have favored the rich and raised our national debt to unbelievable levels. They must be recinded and taxes raised, spending cuts alone will only further deepen the economic crisis we’re all facing.

Tedderman said:
I . We’ve had men and women in uniform, fighting for our freedom since Sept. 2001 who’ve bourn a disproportionate share of the burdon for our freedom. that.

that is what men and women of our military proudly do for us, a job they willingful undertook

Very wise, Pat. You’re right again. If he had been elected years ago, we wouldn’t have some of these problems we have today.

Nick Cave “Easy Money”

It’s difficult. It’s very tough.
I said to the man who’d been sleeping rough
To sit within a fragrant breeze
All among the nodding trees
That hang heavy with the stuff

He threw his arms around my neck
He brushed the tear from my cheek
And held my soft white hand
He was an understanding man
He did not even barely hardly speak

Easy money
Rain it down on the wife and the kids
Rain it down on the house where we live
Rain until you got nothing left to give
And rain that ever-loving stuff down on me

All the things for which my heart yearns
Gives joy in diminishing returns
He kissed me on the mouth
His hands they headed south
And my cheek it burned

Money, man, it is a bitch
The poor, they spoil it for the rich
With my face pressed in the clover
I wondered when this would be over
And at home we are all so guilty-sad

Easy money
Pour it down the open drain
Pour it all through my veins
Pour it down, yeah, let it rain
And pour that ever-loving stuff down on me

Now, I’m sitting pretty down on the bank
Life shuffles past at a low interest rate
In the money-coloured meadows
And all the interesting shadows
They leap up, then dissipate

Easy money
Easy money
Easy money
Rain it down on the wife and the kids
Rain it down on the house where we live
Rain it down until you got nothing left to give
And rain that ever-loving stuff down on me

Ugly, racist buchanan- who used to try to beat up cops as a TEENAGER- now seems to think
being compared to a young black girl is the ultimate insult. Why does anyone bother to talk to this racist loser.
He’s failed at evcerything he’s ever done- kind of a dumbya resume. If REpublicans led their voters to believe in the Easter Bunny that’s their problem- ass, grass or gas- nobody rides for free – tax rates are at a 50 year low-
with 2 dumbya wars run off the books for 8 years- raise the tax rates to what they were before dumbya lowered them as he started two wars- what a doofus he is.