23 Polls Say People Support Higher Taxes to Reduce the Deficit

[Full-Auto]

You left off Hannity's Viagra.

I was trying to be polite and not show what total shit heads democrats are.


Dems reject amendment to ban Viagra for sex offenders - Live Pulse - POLITICO.com

There should be no insurance coverage for Viagra for ANYONE. Fucking is not a right, under the Constitution.

Agreed, but democrats insisted on it.

 

[Synthaholic]

I was trying to be polite and not show what total shit heads democrats are.


Dems reject amendment to ban Viagra for sex offenders - Live Pulse - POLITICO.com

There should be no insurance coverage for Viagra for ANYONE. Fucking is not a right, under the Constitution.

Agreed, but democrats insisted on it.

I get the feeling there is probably a bit more to the story.

 

[Full-Auto]

There should be no insurance coverage for Viagra for ANYONE. Fucking is not a right, under the Constitution.

Agreed, but democrats insisted on it.

I get the feeling there is probably a bit more to the story.

It was during the health care debate where repubs were not allowed amendments.


Medicare to cover Viagra, similar sex performance drugs - Democratic Underground

 

[Synthaholic]

Agreed, but democrats insisted on it.

I get the feeling there is probably a bit more to the story.

It was during the health care debate where repubs were not allowed amendments.


Medicare to cover Viagra, similar sex performance drugs - Democratic Underground

Well then, that's why.

 

[radioguy]

23 polls show Americans don't understand basic economics or math. Even raising the tax rates on the "evil rich" to 100% will not solve the budget problem.

Why not? The problem started when those taxes were ended.
Even with that said, I think that most would agree that an increase in Government income of from $150B to $400B a year (depending on the tax law or tax rate changes invoked) would go well toward lowering the deficit.
-g

 

[Full-Auto]

23 polls show Americans don't understand basic economics or math. Even raising the tax rates on the "evil rich" to 100% will not solve the budget problem.

Why not? The problem started when those taxes were ended.
Even with that said, I think that most would agree that an increase in Government income of from $150B to $400B a year (depending on the tax law or tax rate changes invoked) would go well toward lowering the deficit.
-g

Leaving a trillion dollar gap. Impressive.

 

[Rozman]

Let's ask the question over again...How bout this?

Would you support YOUR TAXES BEING RAISED TO REDUCE THE DEFICIT ?
What do you think the response would be.Anyone that filed a return for 2010 would have their taxes raised to reduce the deficit.When people are asked if they support a raise in taxes it's always the same.As long as it's the rich that takes the hit then it's fine.

 

[radioguy]

23 polls show Americans don't understand basic economics or math. Even raising the tax rates on the "evil rich" to 100% will not solve the budget problem.

Why not? The problem started when those taxes were ended.
Even with that said, I think that most would agree that an increase in Government income of from $150B to $400B a year (depending on the tax law or tax rate changes invoked) would go well toward lowering the deficit.
-g

Leaving a trillion dollar gap. Impressive.

Yes, well, firstly it would not be that large, unless you are measuring over a ten year period.
Next, I don't think anyone is advocating using only tax increases. The point is that increased Government income must be a part of the equation. And why not tax those who are most able to contribute, those who have taken the best advantage of and gained the most from our system of personal, economic, and political freedom?
-g

 

[Full-Auto]

Why not? The problem started when those taxes were ended.
Even with that said, I think that most would agree that an increase in Government income of from $150B to $400B a year (depending on the tax law or tax rate changes invoked) would go well toward lowering the deficit.
-g

Leaving a trillion dollar gap. Impressive.

Yes, well, firstly it would not be that large, unless you are measuring over a ten year period.
Next, I don't think anyone is advocating using only tax increases. The point is that increased Government income must be a part of the equation. And why not tax those who are most able to contribute, those who have taken the best advantage of and gained the most from our system of personal, economic, and political freedom?
-g

Yes it would, It still leaves a trillion dollar gap, Second as we borrow more The servicing of debt grows. It will reach 500 billion this year. It only get worse from there. We are on track to pay more in interest then we spend in defense.

You increase the revenue through a ramped up economy. I wouldnt mind the tax rates going back IF A BIG IF THEY GET SPENDING UNDER CONTROL. Until then default, go under whatever. The sun still comes up in the morning.

 

[radioguy]

You left off Hannity's Viagra.

I was trying to be polite and not show what total shit heads democrats are.


Dems reject amendment to ban Viagra for sex offenders - Live Pulse - POLITICO.com[/url]

There should be no insurance coverage for Viagra for ANYONE. Fucking is not a right, under the Constitution.

Maybe not, but it is a duty according the Bible: "...Be fruitful and multiply and fill the Earth..."
-g

 

[Rozman]

Why not? The problem started when those taxes were ended.
Even with that said, I think that most would agree that an increase in Government income of from $150B to $400B a year (depending on the tax law or tax rate changes invoked) would go well toward lowering the deficit.
-g

Leaving a trillion dollar gap. Impressive.

Yes, well, firstly it would not be that large, unless you are measuring over a ten year period.
Next, I don't think anyone is advocating using only tax increases. The point is that increased Government income must be a part of the equation. And why not tax those who are most able to contribute, those who have taken the best advantage of and gained the most from our system of personal, economic, and political freedom?
-g

And why not tax those who are most able to contribute, those who have taken the best advantage of and gained the most from our system of personal, economic, and political freedom?

Good God this was lifted right out of Obama's speech.....
Did it ever occur to any of you Libs that those who have taken advantage and gotten the most from this amazing country......

PAY TAXES ON THIS ALREADY......

And what do you do when this isn't enough to cover what those bleeding heart liberals have not already given away...What do we do then...We get Bernie Sanders and Debbie Wasserman Feingold Harris Silverstein Saperstein Schultz....did i get all her names in there? we get these people to go out and say that the rich need to give up more of what they have earned.....Stop it please will ya?

 

[Oldstyle]

Why not? The problem started when those taxes were ended.
Even with that said, I think that most would agree that an increase in Government income of from $150B to $400B a year (depending on the tax law or tax rate changes invoked) would go well toward lowering the deficit.
-g

Leaving a trillion dollar gap. Impressive.

Yes, well, firstly it would not be that large, unless you are measuring over a ten year period.
Next, I don't think anyone is advocating using only tax increases. The point is that increased Government income must be a part of the equation. And why not tax those who are most able to contribute, those who have taken the best advantage of and gained the most from our system of personal, economic, and political freedom?
-g

Because doing so is actually counterproductive to increasing government income? Look, I know it sounds good when you tell people that taxing the rich will solve our problems but when you crunch the numbers it's quite obvious that doesn't solve the problem. The reason our deficits are exploding is the money that we are spending...both on general programs but especially on entitlements...is totally out of control. Entitlements are projected to be triple our GDP in another twenty years. Think about that for a minute and then ask yourself how much money we're going to need to take out of the pockets of Americans in taxes to pay for that kind of spending? Sorry kids, but there just isn't enough money on the planet to keep this nonsense up. It's time to cut spending. It's time to reform entitlements. And when we get our economy going again? THEN we can talk about raising taxes. To do so before then is just asking for this recession to drag on for the rest of the decade.

 

[Ame®icano]

23 Polls Say People Support Higher Taxes to Reduce the Deficit

Go to the link to click each poll.

I bet none of those voted on polls don't pay any taxes.
For them, raising taxes means one thing only... tax the rich, not me.

 

[radioguy]

Good God this was lifted right out of Obama's speech

Yeah? I missed that. but it is not an idea that is original with him. And the original topic of this thread is that a significant majority of polled Americans apparently agree with this.

Leaving a trillion dollar gap. Impressive.

Yes, well, firstly it would not be that large, unless you are measuring over a ten year period.
Next, I don't think anyone is advocating using only tax increases. The point is that increased Government income must be a part of the equation. And why not tax those who are most able to contribute, those who have taken the best advantage of and gained the most from our system of personal, economic, and political freedom?
-g

Because doing so is actually counterproductive to increasing government income? Look, I know it sounds good when you tell people that taxing the rich will solve our problems but when you crunch the numbers it's quite obvious that doesn't solve the problem. The reason our deficits are exploding is the money that we are spending...both on general programs but especially on entitlements...is totally out of control. Entitlements are projected to be triple our GDP in another twenty years. Think about that for a minute and then ask yourself how much money we're going to need to take out of the pockets of Americans in taxes to pay for that kind of spending? Sorry kids, but there just isn't enough money on the planet to keep this nonsense up. It's time to cut spending. It's time to reform entitlements. And when we get our economy going again? THEN we can talk about raising taxes. To do so before then is just asking for this recession to drag on for the rest of the decade.

Oddly enough, it was not too long after the tax cuts that the recession started. Probably just a coincidence, but not too many years after that we saw over a doubling of the national debt.
-g

 

[Oldstyle]

Good God this was lifted right out of Obama's speech

Yeah? I missed that. but it is not an idea that is original with him. And the original topic of this thread is that a significant majority of polled Americans apparently agree with this.

Yes, well, firstly it would not be that large, unless you are measuring over a ten year period.
Next, I don't think anyone is advocating using only tax increases. The point is that increased Government income must be a part of the equation. And why not tax those who are most able to contribute, those who have taken the best advantage of and gained the most from our system of personal, economic, and political freedom?
-g

Because doing so is actually counterproductive to increasing government income? Look, I know it sounds good when you tell people that taxing the rich will solve our problems but when you crunch the numbers it's quite obvious that doesn't solve the problem. The reason our deficits are exploding is the money that we are spending...both on general programs but especially on entitlements...is totally out of control. Entitlements are projected to be triple our GDP in another twenty years. Think about that for a minute and then ask yourself how much money we're going to need to take out of the pockets of Americans in taxes to pay for that kind of spending? Sorry kids, but there just isn't enough money on the planet to keep this nonsense up. It's time to cut spending. It's time to reform entitlements. And when we get our economy going again? THEN we can talk about raising taxes. To do so before then is just asking for this recession to drag on for the rest of the decade.

Oddly enough, it was not too long after the tax cuts that the recession started. Probably just a coincidence, but not too many years after that we saw over a doubling of the national debt.
-g

The recession didn't start because of tax cuts. The recession started because of the collapse of a mammoth housing bubble brought on by an over reliance on sub prime loans that should have never been written in the first place. The banks are STILL awash in toxic assets from that debacle four years later. As for the doubling of the debt? That happened when Nancy Pelosi and friends grabbed control of the purse strings.

 

[rdean]

These polls are ridiculous. We have billionaires to support and nurture. The only "correct" form of "socialism".

 

[radioguy]

Good God this was lifted right out of Obama's speech

Yeah? I missed that. but it is not an idea that is original with him. And the original topic of this thread is that a significant majority of polled Americans apparently agree with this.

Because doing so is actually counterproductive to increasing government income? Look, I know it sounds good when you tell people that taxing the rich will solve our problems but when you crunch the numbers it's quite obvious that doesn't solve the problem. The reason our deficits are exploding is the money that we are spending...both on general programs but especially on entitlements...is totally out of control. Entitlements are projected to be triple our GDP in another twenty years. Think about that for a minute and then ask yourself how much money we're going to need to take out of the pockets of Americans in taxes to pay for that kind of spending? Sorry kids, but there just isn't enough money on the planet to keep this nonsense up. It's time to cut spending. It's time to reform entitlements. And when we get our economy going again? THEN we can talk about raising taxes. To do so before then is just asking for this recession to drag on for the rest of the decade.

Oddly enough, it was not too long after the tax cuts that the recession started. Probably just a coincidence, but not too many years after that we saw over a doubling of the national debt.
-g

The recession didn't start because of tax cuts. The recession started because of the collapse of a mammoth housing bubble brought on by an over reliance on sub prime loans that should have never been written in the first place.

The recession was certainly aggravated by that collapse, but it started well before then.

As for the doubling of the debt? That happened when Nancy Pelosi and friends grabbed control of the purse strings.

Actually, it started in 2002-3, years before the Democratic majority in the House. $5.3T to $8.5T, an increase of $3.2T by 2006. So over half of the increase between 2000 and 2008 was during a Republican majority in Congress. Further increases came from programs already put in place from 2002. The evidence could be construed to indicate that Pelosi started to put the brakes on Republican spending and borrowing.
The fact is that Republican administrations have out spent and out borrowed Democratic administrations by a factor of three to one since Eisenhower.
-g

 

[bigrebnc1775]

These polls are ridiculous. We have billionaires to support and nurture. The only "correct" form of "socialism".

Congress is full of billionaires, the top 6 combine worth is over two trillion dollars. and guess how many of them are democrats?

Meet America's 25 Richest Politicians | ZeroHedge

 

[Synthaholic]

These polls are ridiculous. We have billionaires to support and nurture. The only "correct" form of "socialism".

Congress is full of billionaires, the top 6 combine worth is over two trillion dollars. and guess how many of them are democrats?

Meet America's 25 Richest Politicians | ZeroHedge

What's your point, moron?

 

[St.Blues]

These polls are ridiculous. We have billionaires to support and nurture. The only "correct" form of "socialism".

Congress is full of billionaires, the top 6 combine worth is over two trillion dollars. and guess how many of them are democrats?

Meet America's 25 Richest Politicians | ZeroHedge

What's your point, moron?

Can you post a picture of Bwaney Fwank doing that, The true true liberal!
Let Liberal folks get a real feel for their holy man......

Blues