? For liberals: If taxes go up on rich, how will you feel about consequences?

[daveman]

Even down in the sewer we know that taxes equate to money in....while spending equates to money out

If you cut back on the money in and do not cut the money out.....you have a deficit

BOTH additional spending AND decreased tax revenue add to the deficit

Exactly. So why doesn't the left ever want to decrease spending?

On that note why didn't the right decrease spending when they had the chance to do so??

Because the GOP has turned from conservatism and has become the Dem Party Lite.

One D party is more than enough. We don't need two.

However, rightwinger is correct. It's a little hard for any honest person to whine about the deficit when policies they support contribute to the deficit.

Then you're not talking about me. I complained about the deficit when the GOP was running it up, too. But I can't help but notice that many on the Left who were complaining about deficits when Bush was in office are strangely silent on the issue now that Democrats are in charge.

 

[rightwinger]

Exactly. So why doesn't the left ever want to decrease spending?

On that note why didn't the right decrease spending when they had the chance to do so??

Because the GOP has turned from conservatism and has become the Dem Party Lite.

One D party is more than enough. We don't need two.

However, rightwinger is correct. It's a little hard for any honest person to whine about the deficit when policies they support contribute to the deficit.

Then you're not talking about me. I complained about the deficit when the GOP was running it up, too. But I can't help but notice that many on the Left who were complaining about deficits when Bush was in office are strangely silent on the issue now that Democrats are in charge.

GOP is the Dem Party Lite
just as much as the Democrats are Republican Party Lite

Nobody can govern from the extreme fringe...it just doesn't work
To get things done, you have to make concessions to the other side. You rule from the center. It may be left center...it may be right center

But its still the center

 

[daveman]

On that note why didn't the right decrease spending when they had the chance to do so??

Because the GOP has turned from conservatism and has become the Dem Party Lite.

One D party is more than enough. We don't need two.

However, rightwinger is correct. It's a little hard for any honest person to whine about the deficit when policies they support contribute to the deficit.

Then you're not talking about me. I complained about the deficit when the GOP was running it up, too. But I can't help but notice that many on the Left who were complaining about deficits when Bush was in office are strangely silent on the issue now that Democrats are in charge.

GOP is the Dem Party Lite
just as much as the Democrats are Republican Party Lite

Nobody can govern from the extreme fringe...it just doesn't work
To get things done, you have to make concessions to the other side. You rule from the center. It may be left center...it may be right center

But its still the center

I don't want to be ruled. I'm a citizen, not a subject.

YMMV.

 

[Charles_Main]

Exactly. So why doesn't the left ever want to decrease spending?

Who says we don't?

But like with the right, the issue is what spending gets decreased. Fact is that neither the left nor the right has a history of decreasing spending. If the Tea Party were to get into power, they would not decrease spending either.

Guess we'll find out, won't we?

I think they would try, but the sad truth is you would need both the WH and super Majorities in both houses to do any major cuts. and then you must be willing to only have 1 term, because any major cuts are going to assure you are not re-elected no matter how much sense they make.

 

[daveman]

Who says we don't?

But like with the right, the issue is what spending gets decreased. Fact is that neither the left nor the right has a history of decreasing spending. If the Tea Party were to get into power, they would not decrease spending either.

Guess we'll find out, won't we?

I think they would try, but the sad truth is you would need both the WH and super Majorities in both houses to do any major cuts. and then you must be willing to only have 1 term, because any major cuts are going to assure you are not re-elected no matter how much sense they make.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

 

[The T]

Guess we'll find out, won't we?

I think they would try, but the sad truth is you would need both the WH and super Majorities in both houses to do any major cuts. and then you must be willing to only have 1 term, because any major cuts are going to assure you are not re-elected no matter how much sense they make.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

The defining line between Liberty and Tyranny.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So, when taxes go up on the rich in 2011, and it's followed by a recovering economy, job growth, deficit reduction,

have you geniuses on the right compiled your lameass list of stupid things to say to shrug it off, deny it?

 

[rightwinger]

Guess we'll find out, won't we?

I think they would try, but the sad truth is you would need both the WH and super Majorities in both houses to do any major cuts. and then you must be willing to only have 1 term, because any major cuts are going to assure you are not re-elected no matter how much sense they make.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

That is why we are not a democracy

 

[daveman]

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

That is why we are not a democracy

We've outsourced voting ourselves largess to our elected representatives by voting for the guy who promises us the most goodies. We're doing the same thing with just one degree of separation.

 

[rightwinger]

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

That is why we are not a democracy

We've outsourced voting ourselves largess to our elected representatives by voting for the guy who promises us the most goodies. We're doing the same thing with just one degree of separation.

Then how do you explain that the middle class, with the largest population voting block has the least clout when compared to the wealthiest 5% of the country?

The Golden Rule still stands...."He who has the gold...makes the rules"