Hey Dumbass: Tax-Cuts Don't Have To Be Paid For

[EriktheRed]

Hey Dumbass: Tax-Cuts Don't Have To Be Paid For

Hey, Dipshit: Yes they do when the guys pushing for them the most are also bitching and moaning about the deficit.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The idea is limited government.. Such as what is stated in the US Constitution.

Which version? the one with no Air Force?

The one with no FDA?

The one before abolition?

ahh yes. Hairsplitting to further an agenda.
Umm genius, the US Constitution was written well before manned flight was dreamt of.
The Air Force is indeed Constitutional. "provide for the common defense"....
The FDA is an essential function of government. "provide for the general welfare"...
Nice try.
The federal governent is far too large. Nearly 2 million non-military employees. We don't need that many.
The point is this and only this. The federal government has gotten too large, too intrusive and most importantly, wasteful. Government creates nothing. It only consumes.
You'll never get by with the notion that increasing taxes is a way to increase prosperity. Because that is impossible.
This "tax cuts for the rich" drumbeat by the Left is nothing but class envy for political purpsoes.
Quite frankly, the way it should be is those who pay the most deserve the most tax relief.
You don't improve an economy by punishing it's largest producers.

 

[JBeukema]

The FDA is an essential function of government. "provide for the general welfare"...

Fail. The 'General Welfare Clause' is an expression of the purpose for the creation of the government. It is to achieve this only by exercising the powers and authority explicitly spelled out later in the text.

Using your 'reasoning', anything at all can be justified if they say it's for the 'common good'.

The federal governent is far too large. Nearly 2 million non-military employees. We don't need that many.

The fed is what it is because of people like you.

You babble about the Constitution, yet you don't even know what it says.

 

[asterism]

I guess we'll have to see if the CBO's prediction comes true. You realize that the budget is not the rule on spending right? It's the appropriations, the same appropriations that kept the first 7 months of FY 2009 at 2008 levels and then allowed Obama to set his own priorities starting in March of 2009.

Can you please link this? Thanks.

The following sums are hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and out of applicable corporate or other revenues, receipts, and funds, for the several departments, agencies, corporations, and other organizational units of Government for fiscal year 2009, and for other purposes, namely:
SEC. 101. Such amounts as may be necessary, at a rate for operations as provided in the applicable appropriations Acts for
fiscal year 2008 and under the authority and conditions provided in such Acts

Read The Bill: H.R. 2638 [110th] - GovTrack.us

 

[thereisnospoon]

The FDA is an essential function of government. "provide for the general welfare"...

Fail. The 'General Welfare Clause' is an expression of the purpose for the creation of the government. It is to achieve this only by exercising the powers and authority explicitly spelled out later in the text.

Using your 'reasoning', anything at all can be justified if they say it's for the 'common good'.

The federal governent is far too large. Nearly 2 million non-military employees. We don't need that many.

The fed is what it is because of people like you.

You babble about the Constitution, yet you don't even know what it says.

Me?...Based on what?.....
Nice try at the old spin-o-rama. You quoted the FDA. I took you to task and of course you failed logic class.
Look, genius, you won't win this one.
Ever....
Common good?..Yeah. That comes right out of the school or Marxism.
From each accoriding to his means, to each according to his needs.
Common good. The rationalization the State of Connecticut used to condemn private property due to "blight. Condemnation without just compensation.
Common good. Please.
The federal government grows because people are suckered into the notion of entitlement. Womb to tomb security.
An idea that makes any taxpaying ,producing individual want to puke.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

"When men are established in any kind of dignity, it is thought a breach of 'modesty' for others to derogate any way from it, and question the authority of men who are in possession of it." --John Locke

In other words if you have to rely on the authority of others to make your point, you have shown that the flaw in your own logic is that you don't have any.

Whew!!!!!!!

You're certainly no English Major, ARE you??!!

You're explanation is exactly the OPPOSITE of what that quote purports!!!!

I'm a bigger fan o'......

“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it” - George Santayana

In-other-words.....if we fail to learn from the economics of Reagan/Bush I, we're doomed to end-up with an Idiot-Son/Bush II.

What we should have learned, is......if Clintonomics pulled us outta ONE Bush economic-debacle, it only makes SENSE to REPEAT Clintonomics....to pull us outta Bush economic-debacle II!!!!!!!

​

I get it, praise Clinton because you dislike Bush even though neither are in office anymore.

Yeah....that's what I meant.....

My point WAS.....allow Bush tax-cuts to die-on-the-vine....and, we're headed-BACK to $urplu$-city, again!!!!!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The idea is limited government.. Such as what is stated in the US Constitution.

Which version? the one with no Air Force?

The one with no FDA?

The one before abolition?

Ah, yes.....the good-ol'-days....without all that, there gubmint-interference!!!!

(.....And, PLENTY of Allowing The Marketplace To Regulate Itself!!)

*

*

 

[Full-Auto]

Tax cuts, need to be very focused to give the best return on investment, in times of a recession....and in times of running great deficits, with national debt obligations already very high....they shouldn't be willy nilly, produce no return, and just make our deficits and national debt worse, imo.

Like i said,their insane spending dwarfs any possible "Evil Tax Cuts" of the past. The two don't even compare. Besides,Hopey Changey has supported and has proposed Tax Cuts in the past. Gee I wonder why he has suddenly changed his position? Could it be because Elections are right around the corner? Hmm?

obama's first fiscal budget, the 2010 budget will reduce deficit spending by $70 billion, compared to president bush's last fiscal budget for 2009.... though $70 billion less of a deficit is not nearly enough...they are heading in the right direction...

Sorry Bushs last budget was not passed in its entirety. Obama signed the rest. I am glad we could clear up your purposeful misinformation.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The idea is limited government.. Such as what is stated in the US Constitution.

Which version? the one with no Air Force?

The one with no FDA?

The one before abolition?

ahh yes. Hairsplitting to further an agenda.

Yeah.....a regular-travesty......

*

*

 

[beowolfe]

Increasing spending with the medicare pill bill, growing the military spending, creating homeland security, the cost of 2 wars, the boomers nearing retirement, while cutting taxes- was the most non fiscal thing the republicans did or could do and this grew our national debt by over $6 TRILLION dollars in just 8 years, let alone the future deficits coming from the programs they instituted.

the tax cuts did not increase our revenues as you claim, it reduced our revenues and they did not even reach the level they were at in 2000 until the year 2005, and under any normal situation tax revenues would have increased each year on their own just by the growth in gdp, in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004. In addition to this, with these tax cuts still in place and our crappy economy we went back to collecting less revenues than we did in 2000 BEFORE the tax cuts.

Cut us a break Mudwhistle...and do some research on this before making false claims, as you did.

Those tax breaks, are and will continue to add trillions upon trillions to our national debt for the next 20 years or even forever, if changes are not made....and are putting this debt on many generations of our children to come.

Tax cuts without cutting spending is IMMORAL....it puts the spending they've done during our time on to others that had nothing to do with the spending imo.

So why do the Dems want to do it? But they want to wait till after the election to do it?

Well..they want to increase spending but cutting taxes are gonna be put off indefinitely.

The Dems keep sending money out of the country along with thousands of jobs but they also want everyone to think they're open to tax-cuts.

This is a fucken lie of course.

They don't bring it up before November because of the blue dog democrats. They're still trying to get you idiots to vote for them.

 

[Care4all]

Like i said,their insane spending dwarfs any possible "Evil Tax Cuts" of the past. The two don't even compare. Besides,Hopey Changey has supported and has proposed Tax Cuts in the past. Gee I wonder why he has suddenly changed his position? Could it be because Elections are right around the corner? Hmm?

obama's first fiscal budget, the 2010 budget will reduce deficit spending by $70 billion, compared to president bush's last fiscal budget for 2009.... though $70 billion less of a deficit is not nearly enough...they are heading in the right direction...

Sorry Bushs last budget was not passed in its entirety. Obama signed the rest. I am glad we could clear up your purposeful misinformation.

link to the rest of 2009 budget being obama's budget requests, please. link to obama requested legislation for the 2009 budget.

 

[Full-Auto]

obama's first fiscal budget, the 2010 budget will reduce deficit spending by $70 billion, compared to president bush's last fiscal budget for 2009.... though $70 billion less of a deficit is not nearly enough...they are heading in the right direction...

Sorry Bushs last budget was not passed in its entirety. Obama signed the rest. I am glad we could clear up your purposeful misinformation.

link to the rest of 2009 budget being obama's budget requests, please.

Try google, bing or ask jeeves. The stories are out there. That is if you are interested in honesty. The main reason Pelosi held up the budget.

it did not contain enough spending. A fact you can not run from. Should I expect the usual deflection from the left now?

 

[BlindBoo]

Tax cuts for the top 20% of earners always end up producing more revenue for the government than tax cuts for the bottom 20% because high earners can scale up or down their earnings in response to changes in the tax code and have greater incentive to do so.

I wish the left would cease its stupid pointless and self destructive class warfare.

By that reasoning the Bush tax cuts should have decreased the deficit not increased it by nearly 2 trillion dollars? At least they should have covered the cost of the invasion an occupation of Iraq. But they didn't did they? Why is that? Could it be becuase it's simply a pseudo-con talking point and not based in reality?

 

[JBeukema]

Common good?..Yeah. That comes right out of the school or Marxism.

You're the one interpreting the 'general welfare' clause as a carte blanche.

 

[JBeukema]

The idea is limited government.. Such as what is stated in the US Constitution.

Which version? the one with no Air Force?

The one with no FDA?

The one before abolition?

Ah, yes.....the good-ol'-days....without all that, there gubmint-interference!!!!

(.....And, PLENTY of Allowing The Marketplace To Regulate Itself!!)

*

*

 

[Toro]

"More cars, less trees!"



My favourite is "Pave the Rainforest."

 

[thereisnospoon]

Tax cuts for the top 20% of earners always end up producing more revenue for the government than tax cuts for the bottom 20% because high earners can scale up or down their earnings in response to changes in the tax code and have greater incentive to do so.

I wish the left would cease its stupid pointless and self destructive class warfare.

By that reasoning the Bush tax cuts should have decreased the deficit not increased it by nearly 2 trillion dollars? At least they should have covered the cost of the invasion an occupation of Iraq. But they didn't did they? Why is that? Could it be becuase it's simply a pseudo-con talking point and not based in reality?

WRONG!!!! The economy tanked well before the deficits skyrocketed.
Bush was most certiannly NOT a conservative. He is a populist.
His social spending rivaled many democrat admins. It's what got him elected.
Bush forced passage of of the most idiotic and expensive porgrams ever....Those are the Prescription Drug Benefit program and No Child Left Behind. These things simply created more buracracy and little else.
Now, check your history and find one nation able to tax itself into prosperity.
Increasing taxes on the producers to continue funding programs that do not work as intended and keep requiring more funding for said programs is self destructive.

 

[mudwhistle]

So Obama gets away with blaming the GOP for blocking an imaginary bill.

I mean...this is what has happened here.

The Dems left town without voting on a bill that was essential to saving the economy.....but there's one catch: They never wrote the damned thing. Obama has been bad-mouthing the minority for weeks over something that never existed in the first place.

How does he get away with this???

Oh...that's right....he's a Democrat.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The idea is limited government.. Such as what is stated in the US Constitution.

Which version? the one with no Air Force?

The one with no FDA?

The one before abolition?

ahh yes. Hairsplitting to further an agenda.
Umm genius, the US Constitution was written well before manned flight was dreamt of.
The Air Force is indeed Constitutional. "provide for the common defense"....
The FDA is an essential function of government. "provide for the general welfare"...
Nice try.
The federal governent is far too large. Nearly 2 million non-military employees. We don't need that many.
The point is this and only this. The federal government has gotten too large, too intrusive and most importantly, wasteful. Government creates nothing. It only consumes.
You'll never get by with the notion that increasing taxes is a way to increase prosperity. Because that is impossible.
This "tax cuts for the rich" drumbeat by the Left is nothing but class envy for political purpsoes.
Quite frankly, the way it should be is those who pay the most deserve the most tax relief.
You don't improve an economy by punishing it's largest producers.

We've repeatedly cut tax rates for the wealthiest Americans over the past 30 years. Where's the middle/working class prosperity you claim that inevitably produces?

Is disposable income up for lower income Americans? Is the hours worked per household to maintain incomes down?

What's happened over the past 30 years to lower income American's 'prosperity' that can be cited as a justification for all that tax cutting? Tax cutting btw that has been followed by massive increases in the national debt every time those cuts have occurred.

 

[thereisnospoon]

So Obama gets away with blaming the GOP for blocking an imaginary bill.

I mean...this is what has happened here.

The Dems left town without voting on a bill that was essential to saving the economy.....but there's one catch: They never wrote the damned thing. Obama has been bad-mouthing the minority for weeks over something that never existed in the first place.

How does he get away with this???

Oh...that's right....he's a Democrat.

Obama is protected by a complicit main stream media.
It is my guess that the dems adjourned so they could vote NO on a tax break for the middle class.
They will do this during the post election lame duck session.
I also think the dems will ram through (knee)Cap and Trade(tax) during the lame duck session.