Dem Budget: 2 TRILLION in NEW TAX HIKES, Deep Cuts at Pentagon

[The T]

Wrong... taxes are high enough already, and have been for years. More taxes will only crush the delicate state of the economy further into the toilet.

What part about that are you liberals incapable of understanding?

Taxes have not been sufficient to cover spending for thirty years. That is why we ran up $14 trillion in debt

How big an idiot do you have to be to cut taxes without cutting spending first?

Let's return to tax rates to where they were ten years ago. Once the debt is paid off, the wealthy can have their tax cuts back

Wrong answer dipshit. Cut spending. We are taxed enough and have been for far too long.

Trying to protect your paycheck and job moocher? Government is way too large.

 

[007]

Wrong... taxes are high enough already, and have been for years. More taxes will only crush the delicate state of the economy further into the toilet.

What part about that are you liberals incapable of understanding?

The answer isn't 'higher taxes' any more than the answer was 'lower taxes'.

The answer is fair taxes.

Simple = fair. The time to demand a ground-up rebuild of the tax code is now.

Agreed.

Wrong... taxes are high enough already, and have been for years. More taxes will only crush the delicate state of the economy further into the toilet.

What part about that are you liberals incapable of understanding?

Taxes have not been sufficient to cover spending for thirty years. That is why we ran up $14 trillion in debt

How big an idiot do you have to be to cut taxes without cutting spending first?

Let's return to tax rates to where they were ten years ago. Once the debt is paid off, the wealthy can have their tax cuts back

Taxes "should" have been sufficient but they haven't been because government spending is/has been, out of control.

I agree now isn't the time to cut taxes, but it isn't the time to raise them either. Now is the time for Washington to simply stop spending money it doesn't have.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wrong... taxes are high enough already, and have been for years. More taxes will only crush the delicate state of the economy further into the toilet.

What part about that are you liberals incapable of understanding?

There have been 1.1 trillion (roughly) in tax cuts since the recession began. They haven't gotten us out of economic weakness, they haven't created the jobs they were supposed to,

all they've done is push us deeper into debt.

btw, I love how the Right keeps repeating the talking point that this is the wrong time to raise taxes...

...fine, now tell us when would be the right time...

 

[AVG-JOE]

Like it

EVERYTHING on the table....shared sacrifice for all

Does that include the moochers that get a tax return when they pay none?

Shared sacrifice my ass.

Using 'tax credits' to spend money on ANYTHING from welfare to business incentives only makes sense to tax attorneys and stockholders of H&R Block, making the rest of us look very stupid.

Revenue collection should be revenue collection and spending should be spending.

 

[Seawytch]

You can't invade countries, maintain a 10+ year presence in those countries and keep cutting taxes. That is just plain, fucking stupid.

Oil didn't pay for the wars like the Bush Admin said it would...they have to be paid for somehow.

 

[cloudy]

You must have been reading something else. There's nothing "shared" about this plan. He's not advocating make deep cuts into o-care, ss, or any social programs. The dems entire focus is taxation. Tell me when we start cutting ALL social programs, depts, agencies, AND the military by 30 percent and I'll start paying attention.

SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT PART OF THE DEFICIT PROBLEM! IT HAS A DEDICATED TAX AND IT'S OWN TRUST FUND.

Does Social Security need to be addressed for the long term? Yes, but SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT PART OF THE DEFICIT PROBLEM! IT HAS A DEDICATED TAX AND IT'S OWN TRUST FUND.

This ain't rocket science - let's not try to make it rocket science, eh?

Which can't fund itself. Therefore, its broke and needs to be cut.

Follow OUR money!
Stealing from Social Security to Pay for Wars and Bailouts « The Money Party

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wrong... taxes are high enough already, and have been for years. More taxes will only crush the delicate state of the economy further into the toilet.

What part about that are you liberals incapable of understanding?

The part where you said taxes are high enough and have been for years. That doesn't make sense since taxes are at their lowest levels in 60 years.

The top rate was 28% in 1988.
You know that 35% is higher than 28%, right?

 

[Trajan]

the taxes a) need to be on top of a re work of the tax code, if they intend to pull deductions close loopholes and lower the rate, I support that, b) what exactly are 'sharp' cuts at the pentagon, exactly, c) so entitlements are back OFF the table.

thats not what they have been saying for the last week.

the president said in 3 press conferences this week ( though he didn't take questions) that politics is checked at the door and everything is on the table....so did schumer, apparently not, now we know why boehner said no taxs yesterday.

the top 1% pay as much as the 95% of the country in taxes already. and folks wonder why investments ala co's loosening purse stings etc etc are sitting idle. a cross current of contrary messages is one reason.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Like it

EVERYTHING on the table....shared sacrifice for all

You must have been reading something else. There's nothing "shared" about this plan. He's not advocating make deep cuts into o-care, ss, or any social programs. The dems entire focus is taxation. Tell me when we start cutting ALL social programs, depts, agencies, AND the military by 30 percent and I'll start paying attention.

SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT PART OF THE DEFICIT PROBLEM! IT HAS A DEDICATED TAX AND IT'S OWN TRUST FUND.

Does Social Security need to be addressed for the long term? Yes, but SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT PART OF THE DEFICIT PROBLEM! IT HAS A DEDICATED TAX AND IT'S OWN TRUST FUND.

This ain't rocket science - let's not try to make it rocket science, eh?

No, it's not rocket science. SS should be an option. SS used to have it's own trust fund but now goes into the general fund. And yes, if it is not addressed, it will go away.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I don't care for the Democrats' plan, it doesn't go nearly far enough on defense cuts.

We have to get that monkey off our back once and for all.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Like it

EVERYTHING on the table....shared sacrifice for all

You must have been reading something else. There's nothing "shared" about this plan. He's not advocating make deep cuts into o-care, ss, or any social programs. The dems entire focus is taxation. Tell me when we start cutting ALL social programs, depts, agencies, AND the military by 30 percent and I'll start paying attention.

SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT PART OF THE DEFICIT PROBLEM! IT HAS A DEDICATED TAX AND IT'S OWN TRUST FUND.

Does Social Security need to be addressed for the long term? Yes, but SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT PART OF THE DEFICIT PROBLEM! IT HAS A DEDICATED TAX AND IT'S OWN TRUST FUND.

This ain't rocket science - let's not try to make it rocket science, eh?

And it's underfunded out in the 9 and 10 figures column...but hey, no worries

 

[AVG-JOE]

Wrong... taxes are high enough already, and have been for years. More taxes will only crush the delicate state of the economy further into the toilet.

What part about that are you liberals incapable of understanding?

Taxes have not been sufficient to cover spending for thirty years. That is why we ran up $14 trillion in debt

How big an idiot do you have to be to cut taxes without cutting spending first?

Let's return to tax rates to where they were ten years ago. Once the debt is paid off, the wealthy can have their tax cuts back

Which makes sense only if we also return to PAYGO so that spending doesn't have a chance to keep deficit spending alive and well.

 

[007]

More taxes, more taxes, more taxes, more taxes, more taxes, more taxes... that is the liberals answer to EVERYTHING! Damn these fucking MORONS to HELL.

Senate Democrats Draft Debt-Reduction Plan

By Lori Montgomery, Published: July 8

Senate Democrats have drafted a sweeping debt-reduction plan that would slice $4 trillion from projected borrowing over the next decade without touching the expensive health and retirement programs targeted by President Obama.

Instead, Senate Democrats are proposing to stabilize borrowing through sharp cuts at the Pentagon and other government agencies, as well as $2 trillion in new taxes, primarily on families earning more than $1 million year, according to a copy of the plan obtained by The Washington Post.

Senate Democrats draft debt-reduction plan - The Washington Post

Such a rant. How did you think 2 wars were going to be funded? By the tooth fairy?
Only in America, where a Democrat has a balanced budget, and a surplus, can it be squandered by the GOP (republican party) and Democrats are blamed for everything from the beginning of time. go figure.
Show us a family whose income is $1M and struggling???

You mean a "projected surplus?" There was no real surplus moron, it was only on paper. In other words, IT DIDN'T EXIST! That bull shit has been debunked a million times over on this board alone.

Get a clue.

And I'll show you a family who's income is $1M a year that's struggling just as soon as you show me a family that makes $25K a year that employs three people.

 

[rightwinger]

Wrong... taxes are high enough already, and have been for years. More taxes will only crush the delicate state of the economy further into the toilet.

What part about that are you liberals incapable of understanding?

Taxes have not been sufficient to cover spending for thirty years. That is why we ran up $14 trillion in debt

How big an idiot do you have to be to cut taxes without cutting spending first?

Let's return to tax rates to where they were ten years ago. Once the debt is paid off, the wealthy can have their tax cuts back

Wrong answer dipshit. Cut spending. We are taxed enough and have been for far too long.

Trying to protect your paycheck and job moocher? Government is way too large.

Fair enough...I work for the Dept of Defense and I will offer up cuts right now

What happened to the peace dividend after the end of the Cold War?
Why does the US need 11 Carrier Task Forces when no other nation has one?
Why do we need 2500 nuclear weapons and the subs, missiles and bombers to carry them? Nukes haven't been used in 60 years
Get the fuck out of Iraq and Afghanistan
Why is the US Military larger than the next ten militaries combined?

Before we start asking Americans to sacrifice healthcare, education, police, fire protection and infrastructure, let's look at our military mission around the globe

 

[NYcarbineer]

You can't invade countries, maintain a 10+ year presence in those countries and keep cutting taxes. That is just plain, fucking stupid.

Oil didn't pay for the wars like the Bush Admin said it would...they have to be paid for somehow.

But what the Right wants is to pay for that militarism, and the money it brings in for the defense lobby,

by turning the US into a third world country domestically. They want to virtually wipe out (if they had the power to do so) every bit of expenditure or law that goes to alleviating the consequences of being in the lower income brackets in America,

whether it be in health, education, food, shelter, labor, you name it.

In a perfect conservative world, all of that would be gone, and the US would look more like Mexico,

with a really really really big army.

 

[007]

You can't invade countries, maintain a 10+ year presence in those countries and keep cutting taxes. That is just plain, fucking stupid.

Oil didn't pay for the wars like the Bush Admin said it would...they have to be paid for somehow.

But what the Right wants is to pay for that militarism, and the money it brings in for the defense lobby,

by turning the US into a third world country domestically. They want to virtually wipe out (if they had the power to do so) every bit of expenditure or law that goes to alleviating the consequences of being in the lower income brackets in America,

whether it be in health, education, food, shelter, labor, you name it.

In a perfect conservative world, all of that would be gone, and the US would look more like Mexico,

with a really really really big army.

Not even... I'm an independent but a strong conservative. You can call me right wing but I'm not a republican, however, I do agree strongly with rightwinger's post above your's. So what you've said is not true across the board as a blanket statement.

 

[AVG-JOE]

You must have been reading something else. There's nothing "shared" about this plan. He's not advocating make deep cuts into o-care, ss, or any social programs. The dems entire focus is taxation. Tell me when we start cutting ALL social programs, depts, agencies, AND the military by 30 percent and I'll start paying attention.

SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT PART OF THE DEFICIT PROBLEM! IT HAS A DEDICATED TAX AND IT'S OWN TRUST FUND.

Does Social Security need to be addressed for the long term? Yes, but SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT PART OF THE DEFICIT PROBLEM! IT HAS A DEDICATED TAX AND IT'S OWN TRUST FUND.

This ain't rocket science - let's not try to make it rocket science, eh?

Which can't fund itself. Therefore, its broke and needs to be cut.

Fixing Social Security is definitely an issue on the table, but not on the deficit table. Social Security is not paid from the general fund and is therefore NOT part of the deficit.

Ass-U-Me-ing the Federal Government doesn't default on its T-Bills, SS is flush 'till 2035 by even the most pessimistic projections.

Until congress does away with the separate FICA tax on my paycheck and starts paying Social Security out of the general fund, it is NOT PART OF THE DEFICIT PROBLEM.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You must have been reading something else. There's nothing "shared" about this plan. He's not advocating make deep cuts into o-care, ss, or any social programs. The dems entire focus is taxation. Tell me when we start cutting ALL social programs, depts, agencies, AND the military by 30 percent and I'll start paying attention.

SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT PART OF THE DEFICIT PROBLEM! IT HAS A DEDICATED TAX AND IT'S OWN TRUST FUND.

Does Social Security need to be addressed for the long term? Yes, but SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT PART OF THE DEFICIT PROBLEM! IT HAS A DEDICATED TAX AND IT'S OWN TRUST FUND.

This ain't rocket science - let's not try to make it rocket science, eh?

And it's underfunded out in the 9 and 10 figures column...but hey, no worries

If Social Security can't pay full benefits 30 years from now all that will mean is that people paying in now will only get what their payroll taxes over the years allows them to get.

So what?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You can't invade countries, maintain a 10+ year presence in those countries and keep cutting taxes. That is just plain, fucking stupid.

Oil didn't pay for the wars like the Bush Admin said it would...they have to be paid for somehow.

But what the Right wants is to pay for that militarism, and the money it brings in for the defense lobby,

by turning the US into a third world country domestically. They want to virtually wipe out (if they had the power to do so) every bit of expenditure or law that goes to alleviating the consequences of being in the lower income brackets in America,

whether it be in health, education, food, shelter, labor, you name it.

In a perfect conservative world, all of that would be gone, and the US would look more like Mexico,

with a really really really big army.

"We own the Economy" -- DNC

 

[DontBeStupid]

You mean a "projected surplus?" There was no real surplus moron, it was only on paper. In other words, IT DIDN'T EXIST! That bull shit has been debunked a million times over on this board alone.

Here we go again. You probably think we didn't land on the moon either.