How do you feel the standoff in Washington would best resolved?

In fairness CP is learning all his history from a liberal learning institution. His inability to note bias is rooted in his belief his professors are neutral politically and just state fact.



In fairness, saveliberty to jumping to conclusions about me and how I think based on the fact that I am in college. Never did I say I did NOT attend a liberal institution and never did I state that my professors are neutral politically. I find it a little disrespectful that you are judging as heavily as you are. I am merely suggesting that we should do everything we can to bring us to revenue neutral. I see taxing the wealthy a little more (like the rate we saw in the early 1900s perhaps?) to be a viable option. Maybe not the middle and lower classes, but the point is that I see the goal as getting to revenue neutral.

Speaking of which I don't know who you were addressing percy, but if you were addressing me, I know very well the difference between tax rates and tax revenues, thank you.

Okay, so name your institution.

Respect is earned, not given.
 
Last edited:
It was a manufacturing based economy then cp. Our service based can't offer the increases necessary to right the debt.


Well not at the rate that Clinton was able to for sure, but our budget deficit is a little over a trillion. In any case, raising taxes would not slow business as much as it is sensationalized to and cutting certain parts of a couple other programs would be legitimate and equalize the debt easily. I mean even at least a couple of high ranking military officials who oversee funding have said they are surplussed and do not need the highest funded military in history.


PERCY - I define cuts as anything that will close the gap between our annual budget deficit and revenue neutral.

So your definition of spending cuts includes year on year increases in spending. Thanks for making my point. Much appriciated.

.
 
I agree that raising taxes on anyone except the wealthy is suicide and asking for a slower economy. However, I also believe the same as 30% of the high earners say which is, "Tax us!"

As for the Bill Gates break, he got a break designing a multi-window program for the APPLE 2 which was stolen from XEROX (somewhat). So no one does anything alone and that being said, I believe that our country is the cause of anything the people do in it. Without this government in place throughout the years, I believe our way of life would be entirely different at this point and we have the government at least philosophically to thank for it. Without our government a lot could have gone wrong in the past that didn't. Some that did, but most that didn't.

Now, I see a lot of comments shouting liberal and other things, so I want to know what would you all do about the deficit? Not raise taxes and cut spending? To what?

I appreciate everyone's opinions and I do agree with a lot of them being very viable options.
 
In fairness CP is learning all his history from a liberal learning institution. His inability to note bias is rooted in his belief his professors are neutral politically and just state fact.



In fairness, saveliberty to jumping to conclusions about me and how I think based on the fact that I am in college. Never did I say I did NOT attend a liberal institution and never did I state that my professors are neutral politically. I find it a little disrespectful that you are judging as heavily as you are. I am merely suggesting that we should do everything we can to bring us to revenue neutral. I see taxing the wealthy a little more (like the rate we saw in the early 1900s perhaps?) to be a viable option. Maybe not the middle and lower classes, but the point is that I see the goal as getting to revenue neutral.

Speaking of which I don't know who you were addressing percy, but if you were addressing me, I know very well the difference between tax rates and tax revenues, thank you.

Ok...then if we're REALLY looking for something that will address the issue of the deficit, CP...you're going to have to explain to me how a tax increase on the wealthy that is estimated to bring in enough revenue to run the Federal Government for approximately 8 days...while not cutting spending at all (cutting the size of an increase isn't really a cut...now is it?) is going to do that. I'm all ears...
 
I agree that raising taxes on anyone except the wealthy is suicide and asking for a slower economy. However, I also believe the same as 30% of the high earners say which is, "Tax us!"

As for the Bill Gates break, he got a break designing a multi-window program for the APPLE 2 which was stolen from XEROX (somewhat). So no one does anything alone and that being said, I believe that our country is the cause of anything the people do in it. Without this government in place throughout the years, I believe our way of life would be entirely different at this point and we have the government at least philosophically to thank for it. Without our government a lot could have gone wrong in the past that didn't. Some that did, but most that didn't.

Now, I see a lot of comments shouting liberal and other things, so I want to know what would you all do about the deficit? Not raise taxes and cut spending? To what?

I appreciate everyone's opinions and I do agree with a lot of them being very viable options.

No. raising taxes on anyone is suicide for the struggling economy.

And no Bill Gates didn't get a break. He created one.
 
Post fourty-three kind of negates your theory Avatar.
 
Last edited:
It was a manufacturing based economy then cp. Our service based can't offer the increases necessary to right the debt.


Well not at the rate that Clinton was able to for sure, but our budget deficit is a little over a trillion. In any case, raising taxes would not slow business as much as it is sensationalized to and cutting certain parts of a couple other programs would be legitimate and equalize the debt easily. I mean even at least a couple of high ranking military officials who oversee funding have said they are surplussed and do not need the highest funded military in history.


PERCY - I define cuts as anything that will close the gap between our annual budget deficit and revenue neutral.

So your definition of spending cuts includes year on year increases in spending. Thanks for making my point. Much appriciated.

.


How did you even get that from what I said???? haha Should I be wording it differently? I believe we should CUT spending and maybe RAISE taxes to instead of having a 1 trillion per year budget DEFICIT, EQUAL to ZERO or positive instead of the 1 trillion we have negative every year. I call that 0 revenue neutral because we don't gain per year, but we don't lose per year either.

I don't see myself saying increase spending.
 
Republicans should walk away. obama wants the fiscal cliff. It is to his benefit. Let him have it.
 
I repeat, what school do you attend? This all starts with you being honest with yourself and understanding how you have been influenced.
 
Last edited:
In fairness CP is learning all his history from a liberal learning institution. His inability to note bias is rooted in his belief his professors are neutral politically and just state fact.



In fairness, saveliberty to jumping to conclusions about me and how I think based on the fact that I am in college. Never did I say I did NOT attend a liberal institution and never did I state that my professors are neutral politically. I find it a little disrespectful that you are judging as heavily as you are. I am merely suggesting that we should do everything we can to bring us to revenue neutral. I see taxing the wealthy a little more (like the rate we saw in the early 1900s perhaps?) to be a viable option. Maybe not the middle and lower classes, but the point is that I see the goal as getting to revenue neutral.

Speaking of which I don't know who you were addressing percy, but if you were addressing me, I know very well the difference between tax rates and tax revenues, thank you.

Ok...then if we're REALLY looking for something that will address the issue of the deficit, CP...you're going to have to explain to me how a tax increase on the wealthy that is estimated to bring in enough revenue to run the Federal Government for approximately 8 days...while not cutting spending at all (cutting the size of an increase isn't really a cut...now is it?) is going to do that. I'm all ears...




I never said that I didn't want to cut spending. I said in my last post too.

Notes to all other posters:

Note 1: I would raise the almost 90 billion from raising taxes on the wealthy because they can afford it and it would not be that much of a difference to the income they see now.

Note 2: The school I attend is just a community college because I am broke too =P

Note 3: I am not taking a liberal stance, but merely conversing to find a medium.
 
...and you would characterize this community college as conservative or liberal?

Not taking a liberal stance? lol

You quoted Obama with the you didn't get there on your own speech. Be honest. I can't save you if you lie to yourself. If you want validation and a self esteem boost go to your mama. If you want real answers hang with me.

By the way, when you have some money and the poor neighbor kid steals your kid's bike, you'll still be pissed. Rich people have feelings too.
 
Last edited:
Well not at the rate that Clinton was able to for sure, but our budget deficit is a little over a trillion. In any case, raising taxes would not slow business as much as it is sensationalized to and cutting certain parts of a couple other programs would be legitimate and equalize the debt easily. I mean even at least a couple of high ranking military officials who oversee funding have said they are surplussed and do not need the highest funded military in history.


PERCY - I define cuts as anything that will close the gap between our annual budget deficit and revenue neutral.

So your definition of spending cuts includes year on year increases in spending. Thanks for making my point. Much appriciated.

.


How did you even get that from what I said???? haha Should I be wording it differently? I believe we should CUT spending and maybe RAISE taxes to instead of having a 1 trillion per year budget DEFICIT, EQUAL to ZERO or positive instead of the 1 trillion we have negative every year. I call that 0 revenue neutral because we don't gain per year, but we don't lose per year either.

I don't see myself saying increase spending.

To be honest with you, CP? I don't think you have a firm grasp on the scope of the deficit we're facing. The President is calling for a tax increase that will raise (in a best case scenario which seldom occurs) approximately 870 billion dollars over the next decade. That comes out to 87 billion dollars per year. At the same time he's calling for cuts to the spending increases that were being called for. So where are the actual cuts to spending? Entitlements are off the table according to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and I've yet to see Barack Obama put concrete cuts to entitlements in his plans. Since those are the prime drivers of our debt? How is the deficit going to do anything except explode in size? You must have some idea how that's going to work? Right?
 
I repeat, what school do you attend? This all starts with you being honest with yourself and understanding how you have been influenced.



The statement that I am influence by a liberal agenda is ridiculous. Watch this:

1st trimester abortions (dem = 2nd, rep = 0 trimesters)
Less trade regulations and restrictions
Gay marriage - pro if it is kept legal and not pushed on religion (churches, etc.)
Bush tax cuts expire on the upper class
STEM bill - pro giving 55,000 green card work visa options to degree holders bringing highly skilled labor force into the US
Drill for domestic oil

Etc.

Balance, meet in the middle sort of. Just ideas....
 
In fairness, saveliberty to jumping to conclusions about me and how I think based on the fact that I am in college. Never did I say I did NOT attend a liberal institution and never did I state that my professors are neutral politically. I find it a little disrespectful that you are judging as heavily as you are. I am merely suggesting that we should do everything we can to bring us to revenue neutral. I see taxing the wealthy a little more (like the rate we saw in the early 1900s perhaps?) to be a viable option. Maybe not the middle and lower classes, but the point is that I see the goal as getting to revenue neutral.

Speaking of which I don't know who you were addressing percy, but if you were addressing me, I know very well the difference between tax rates and tax revenues, thank you.

Ok...then if we're REALLY looking for something that will address the issue of the deficit, CP...you're going to have to explain to me how a tax increase on the wealthy that is estimated to bring in enough revenue to run the Federal Government for approximately 8 days...while not cutting spending at all (cutting the size of an increase isn't really a cut...now is it?) is going to do that. I'm all ears...




I never said that I didn't want to cut spending. I said in my last post too.

Notes to all other posters:

Note 1: I would raise the almost 90 billion from raising taxes on the wealthy because they can afford it and it would not be that much of a difference to the income they see now.


Note 2: The school I attend is just a community college because I am broke too =P

Note 3: I am not taking a liberal stance, but merely conversing to find a medium.

So another who is a full believer in unequal treatment by government under law when they want something out of someone else (in this case, to pay for things for others)

Nah... while I concede and appreciate someone else on here who wants to cut spending... I will never side with or support unequal treatment by government in continual support of our subjective tax code that is the biggest tool for pandering for political power in this country
 
Well not at the rate that Clinton was able to for sure, but our budget deficit is a little over a trillion. In any case, raising taxes would not slow business as much as it is sensationalized to and cutting certain parts of a couple other programs would be legitimate and equalize the debt easily. I mean even at least a couple of high ranking military officials who oversee funding have said they are surplussed and do not need the highest funded military in history.


PERCY - I define cuts as anything that will close the gap between our annual budget deficit and revenue neutral.

So your definition of spending cuts includes year on year increases in spending. Thanks for making my point. Much appriciated.

.


How did you even get that from what I said???? haha Should I be wording it differently? I believe we should CUT spending and maybe RAISE taxes to instead of having a 1 trillion per year budget DEFICIT, EQUAL to ZERO or positive instead of the 1 trillion we have negative every year. I call that 0 revenue neutral because we don't gain per year, but we don't lose per year either.

I don't see myself saying increase spending.

The federal governments spending 'Budget', approved by Congress, and implimented by the Executive branch, has something called a 'base line'. A base line budget for a specific item (say Medicare, or the DOE) is a predetermined level of spending which changes over time according to what has been written into law by Congress. The current base line spending rates are all increasing over time, as written into current law.

As an example, if there is no cut or increase in (baseline) spending for Social Security, 80 year old grandma Jane Doe will get more money next year than she received this year in SS stipends. It will be spending neutral from a budget standpoint, even though Grandma gets more money. Hope this helps you out a bit.
 
Last edited:
California Community College. This is going to be harder than it first appeared.
 
To be honest with you, CP? I don't think you have a firm grasp on the scope of the deficit we're facing. The President is calling for a tax increase that will raise (in a best case scenario which seldom occurs) approximately 870 billion dollars over the next decade. That comes out to 87 billion dollars per year. At the same time he's calling for cuts to the spending increases that were being called for. So where are the actual cuts to spending? Entitlements are off the table according to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and I've yet to see Barack Obama put concrete cuts to entitlements in his plans. Since those are the prime drivers of our debt? How is the deficit going to do anything except explode in size? You must have some idea how that's going to work? Right?


I agree completely that Obama is not doing well either and maybe Romney would have done better and would continue to do better. You are also right in that we need to make actual cuts, not just prevent an increase in spending. I still think that 87 billion is enough to make taxes increase a little.

In a simple sense, my opinion states the following: increase taxes on the rich as Dems want, cut entitlements and actual spending not projected spending, etc. DO BOTH I don't see why the top 2% can't be hit with a little more taxation! And I never quoted Obama i don't know what that was, but in all honesty everyone gets a break in life. Whether anyone likes it, everyone does.
 
In fairness, saveliberty to jumping to conclusions about me and how I think based on the fact that I am in college. Never did I say I did NOT attend a liberal institution and never did I state that my professors are neutral politically. I find it a little disrespectful that you are judging as heavily as you are. I am merely suggesting that we should do everything we can to bring us to revenue neutral. I see taxing the wealthy a little more (like the rate we saw in the early 1900s perhaps?) to be a viable option. Maybe not the middle and lower classes, but the point is that I see the goal as getting to revenue neutral.

Speaking of which I don't know who you were addressing percy, but if you were addressing me, I know very well the difference between tax rates and tax revenues, thank you.

Ok...then if we're REALLY looking for something that will address the issue of the deficit, CP...you're going to have to explain to me how a tax increase on the wealthy that is estimated to bring in enough revenue to run the Federal Government for approximately 8 days...while not cutting spending at all (cutting the size of an increase isn't really a cut...now is it?) is going to do that. I'm all ears...




I never said that I didn't want to cut spending. I said in my last post too.

Notes to all other posters:

Note 1: I would raise the almost 90 billion from raising taxes on the wealthy because they can afford it and it would not be that much of a difference to the income they see now.

Note 2: The school I attend is just a community college because I am broke too =P

Note 3: I am not taking a liberal stance, but merely conversing to find a medium.

Here's my problem, Cody. I was taught in my college economics courses that Keynesian economic theory was to for the government to spend borrowed money during economic downturns to boost the economy that it would then repay with higher taxes during economic booms. The purpose of which was two fold...to repay the borrowed money so as no tot go too deeply in debt but also to use the higher taxes to dampen an overheated economy so bubbles wouldn't be so large or harmful when they inevitably burst. Now I'm not a Keynesian by nature but the people running our country's fiscal policy at the present time have portrayed themselves as Keynesians...yet when it comes to this tax raise during a slow economy...what they are advocating is counter to what John Maynard Keynes called for.
 
Send everyone in Washington politics home on a permanent "time out" from politics and hire people who are not, cannot and will not become career politicians to do the job.

Immie
 

Forum List

Back
Top