(08-08-2011 10:39 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  BLAZER

THEY HAD 4 TRILLION in cuts. It was a done deal til the "Tea Party" wouldn't take the "balanced approach" ie. TAX INCREASES. Corker said it. McConnel said it. They had the 4 trillion in cuts, but one side would stomach the tax increases. Which 70% of our country agrees with. Cut and Tax.

Figment of your imagination. The deal was never a deal, let alone a done deal.

If your fighting for spending cuts, you don't agree to something that will lead to more spending, tax increases.

(08-08-2011 10:25 AM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  I didn't pin it all. I'm saying you, clearly a conservative, are also supporting a side at fault, so I'm not interested in your bitching about Obama or the down grade,

Then why are you on this thread?

Quote:when the conservatives played a clear and obvious role in this.

Or not.

(08-08-2011 10:46 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-08-2011 10:25 AM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  I didn't pin it all. I'm saying you, clearly a conservative, are also supporting a side at fault, so I'm not interested in your bitching about Obama or the down grade,

Then why are you on this thread?

Quote:when the conservatives played a clear and obvious role in this.

Or not.

How far is your head up your ass?

The fact of the matter is, if you aren't going to acknowledge the S&P believes they also needed to let the tax cuts lapse, while only bitching about not enough cuts being made and Obama, there's just no reason to even have a conversation. You aren't even trying to be rational about it.

(08-08-2011 11:04 AM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  The fact of the matter is, if you aren't going to acknowledge the S&P believes they also needed to let the tax cuts lapse, while only bitching about not enough cuts being made and Obama, there's just no reason to even have a conversation.

Once again, so why are you here?

Quote: You aren't even trying to be rational about it.

Heh, coming from you I think that's a compliment.

Fact of the matter is, trying to have a rational conversation w/ you is pointless, so I don't even try.

Friend, I'm here to call him out for being a hypocrite and pointing out he should look in the mirror, there is plenty of fault to go around, to ***** about one side is just stupid.

Once again buddy, I noticed you just resort to insulting someone instead of trying to make a point.. more surprising you didn't really change the subject completely, so I guess that's progress for you.

(08-08-2011 10:39 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  BLAZER

THEY HAD 4 TRILLION in cuts. It was a done deal til the "Tea Party" wouldn't take the "balanced approach" ie. TAX INCREASES. Corker said it. McConnel said it. They had the 4 trillion in cuts, but one side would stomach the tax increases. Which 70% of our country agrees with. Cut and Tax.

They had 4 Trillion in back loaded cuts that no future congress would be beholden to.

Bull if that back loaded 4 trill went through we don't have the downgrade. Plain and simple. Read the reports. Moody's and S&P mention the political environment. They both mention the "expiration of the Bush Tax cuts". We couldn't afford them in 2002 and we sure in the hell can't afford them in 2011. Bush was a MONUMENTAL failure. The worst president in our history.

(08-08-2011 11:21 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Bull if that back loaded 4 trill went through we don't have the downgrade. Plain and simple. Read the reports. Moody's and S&P mention the political environment. They both mention the "expiration of the Bush Tax cuts". We couldn't afford them in 2002 and we sure in the hell can't afford them in 2011. Bush was a MONUMENTAL failure. The worst president in our history.

Today MACH, we don't have the downgrade *today*... But when that backloaded 4 trillion (which would likely be closer to 1-2 trillion when adjusted for inflation) was completely ignored by future vote buying congresses we would be downgraded then.

We now have a debt greater than our GDP and run a deficit approaching a third of that same GDP. At some point *soon* we need to balance the budget..

(08-08-2011 11:21 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Bull if that back loaded 4 trill went through we don't have the downgrade. Plain and simple. Read the reports. Moody's and S&P mention the political environment. They both mention the "expiration of the Bush Tax cuts". We couldn't afford them in 2002 and we sure in the hell can't afford them in 2011. Bush was a MONUMENTAL failure. The worst president in our history.

Your retardation shows through again.

and taxes have to be a part of BALANCING it.

(08-08-2011 11:21 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Bull if that back loaded 4 trill went through we don't have the downgrade. Plain and simple. Read the reports. Moody's and S&P mention the political environment. They both mention the "expiration of the Bush Tax cuts". We couldn't afford them in 2002 and we sure in the hell can't afford them in 2011. Bush was a MONUMENTAL failure. The worst president in our history.

Then how do you evaluate Obama for continuing nearly all of his policies?

(08-08-2011 11:29 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  and taxes have to be a part of BALANCING it.

*WHY*

Why is it that we have inlays that are about on par with 1999 (inflation adjusted) but the debt is through the roof? Is the bigger problem here the blue or the red line?



Look if the deal was repeal the bush tax cuts and we go back to 1999 spending levels (inflation adjusted) I think the tea party would have been all in.

I've got a great idea for you Mach. Just like all the billionaires that proclaim that we all need to pay more taxes (until some of THEIR booty is targeted, of course) why don't you just voluntarily raise your own taxes?

Even idiotic and economically illiterate democrats who want to spend a lot more realize that you don't raise taxes during a recession. They realize it because their job prospects (re-election) depend on knowing how the electorate will react to them voting to raise taxes when 1 of 5 males in this country are unemployed.

Otherwise, why didn't the dems raise taxes when they totally ran everything and controlled all the levers of government? You know the answer - in typical dem fashion, they want "bi-partisan cover" for their scheme. They want to be able to blame the other side, like they are doing right now. If they had ANY courage and believe that taxes must be raised, they had a chance to do it but chose NOT to. Forget the debt ceiling theatre. The dems know that it is a political loser for them to propose it.

When I consider All the taxes I pay, income, sales, property, SS, FICA, gas, capital gains, school, water, telco and even more, I'm are looking at 60-70%. and there is no state income tax in Texas. When is enough, enough. Why don't we just give it all to the bureaucrats, they have proven they know better how to spend it.

(08-08-2011 09:31 AM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  Cutting debt would not have been enough anyways. The GOP can't ***** about this after refusing to close tax loopholes and not letting the Bush tax cuts expire. You don't get to threaten you're going to let the country default and then be upset the S&P downgrades your credit rating for being irresponsible, I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is. You got what you asked for, you don't get to be upset about it now.

This is the single biggest failure of leadership in our government that I've seen in our lifetime. It is not coincidental that we have the worst individuals in every major leadership position in both parties in my lifetime (McConnell may be the exception, but I honestly don't know enough to judge him). But, from the Party chair to both houses of congress and the WH, these guys and gals are just awful.

I would have been ok with raising taxes across the board to raise $1*10^12 if $4*10^12 had been cut. That may not have been good for jobs in the short term, but there are problems much worse than that affecting our job growth (regulations and other burdens on businesses), and those seem like they're more likely to have a large impact than tax rates at this point.

One way or the other, I'm in full support of Owl 69/70/75 suggestions on Boortz-?????? tax restructuring. I think that all of this mess should be the impetus to reform that and the Great Society and simplify huge swaths of government in the process (IRS and welfare programs).

(08-08-2011 11:29 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  and taxes have to be a part of BALANCING it.

If you put some of that 49% who don't pay taxes back on the rolls and bring down unemployment, you'd have more in increased revenue than any tax increase would bring in. Increased revenue's what you want right? Or do you really want to just punish producers.

(08-08-2011 11:39 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(08-08-2011 11:29 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  and taxes have to be a part of BALANCING it.

*WHY*

Why is it that we have inlays that are about on par with 1999 (inflation adjusted) but the debt is through the roof? Is the bigger problem here the blue or the red line?



Look if the deal was repeal the bush tax cuts and we go back to 1999 spending levels (inflation adjusted) I think the tea party would have been all in.

I think you've got a great question there. I think tax revenues should be in the mix because we've got a crisis here, but it doesn't make sense to increase tax rates if in the end you are going to decrease tax revenue (by further wrecking the economy). If you can increase revenue to attempt to restore a balanced budget, I think it should be on the table at this point so that we don't **** everything up for generations. However, there is no sense in picking a magic ratio of 1:1 or 4:1 or whatever ... that's just arbitrary. But, so is a 1:0 of cuts versus revenue.

What I'd like to see in the above chart is maybe three more lines - discretionary spending, entitlements, and military spending. I'd suspect that discretionary isn't the one going through the roof, and the more often that people see what entitlements will do to us, the better it is (and that's a freight train that everyone has seen coming down the road for 30 years, but people haven't paid heed to it).

I agree, I45. One side wants to focus on defense which is part of the roughly third of the budget known as discretionary spending. They also don't want to talk at all about any changes to SS and Medicare, the two entitlement programs that will bankrupt us if we somehow survive that long as a nation. It's the entitlements that are on autopilot spending where the real danger lies. This doesn't even consider what the newest entitlement will do to us if it isn't repealed.

It would be very instructive to see those lines on the graph. Maybe the media noise machine would get muted by a public that could actually see what entitlements are doing to our spending levels.

Good post.