People Support Higher Taxes to Reduce the Deficit by a 2-to-1 Margin

[EriktheRed]

Guess what? We have a hefty bill to pay now for our military adventurism. It didn't go away because Bush told you he wouldn't raise your taxes.

Bush just left it up to someone else to pay for his wars.

Another irony is that before this Conservatives used to say that one of the few legitimate functions of any government was waging war, yet they couldn't be bothered to chip in a little even for that.

Only conservatives voted for the wars and their funding?

No, but they were the ones who balked at tax increases to fund them. There were many Dems who argued we shouldn't balloon the deficit by not incresing taxes to fund them and I sure don't remember hearing any Republicans agreeing with them.

 

[saveliberty]

Another irony is that before this Conservatives used to say that one of the few legitimate functions of any government was waging war, yet they couldn't be bothered to chip in a little even for that.

Only conservatives voted for the wars and their funding?

No, but they were the ones who balked at tax increases to fund them. There were many Dems who argued we shouldn't balloon the deficit by not incresing taxes to fund them and I sure don't remember hearing any Republicans agreeing with them.

...and how many Democrats advocated reducing government as an alternative to a tax increase?

 

[thereisnospoon]

To really address the debt will require a nationwide effort with a virtual mobilization and sacrifice of the entire populace that would be akin to the mobilization of the public during World War II.

It would be the best thing for this country economically. However, we are so fractured, I doubt it would work.

It doesn't help that the two major parties are more concerned with the White House then the problem. Maybe if Obama wins, he can do it as a second termer.

So the solution is to build equipment and machines even though there is no or little market for them?
What is it with you libs and "sacrifice"?
Is misery your ultimate achievement?

Sacrifice is what makes this country work. The goofy Randian philosophy of unfettered selfishness of ultimately flawed. Someone has to be willing to lay their comfort and safety on the line and to sacrifice their time and perhaps their lives to ensure a society where the capitalist can amass wealth. Capitalism can't survive without stable infrastructure.

A stable nation is the anti-thesis of misery. True misery is power in the hands of the guilded few who have no interest in anyone else. It is socieities like that where failure is assured as the have nots become increasingly dis-enchanted and eventually violent. Why did the Czar fall? Why has every Monarchy in Europe fallen? What gave birth to the philosophy of communism?

The stupidity of objectivism is that it assumes that there will always be dumb rubes who will muddle around in the lower classes to do these jobs while the pathologically selfish can amass vast wealth.

"Sacrifice" used to be viewed as a positive thing in this country. Now it is viewed as a "sucker's bet". Ironically, while slapping the boys and girls in uniform on the back.

The sacrifice I am talking about, raising taxes in the common goal of financial freedom, is trivial when stacked up next to asking a young man or woman to go to Afghanistan or Iraq for a year to sweat it out.

Yet, you would think people were being asked to give up their first born son.

If our country collapses, it will ultimately be because we are too fucking greedy to recognize that you can't have it all.

Then again, after being told we could fight wars in two nations without any economic sacrifice (and people believing that), I have lost a degree of faith in our pragmatism.

Guess what? We have a hefty bill to pay now for our military adventurism. It didn't go away because Bush told you he wouldn't raise your taxes.

Bush just left it up to someone else to pay for his wars.

Oh bullshit.
Hard work which begets achievement and success is what makes this country work.
You've taken "sacrifice" to a new level. Yours is allowing government to confiscate more of individual earnings to satisfy the insatiable desire of politicians to spend our money.
Greed? Greed comes in many forms. Wanting to keep as much as one earns as possible is not one of them.
On the other hand, the continual demand of the producers to allow more confiscation is a form of greed.
None of us objects to sensible taxation so that government can provide constitutionally essential functions.
It is the incredible waste fraud and abuse of taxpayer dollars combined with an ideology that depends on the growth of government.
The misery is control in the hands of a the political power structure which is essentially an elite ruling class.
Why is it you are unwilling to call upon government to exercise fiscal responsibility?
Why is it your side believes government must possess a blank check?
If our economy collapses it will be on the hands of greedy politicians who think out of control spending of money the country does not have is a path to greatness.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Another irony is that before this Conservatives used to say that one of the few legitimate functions of any government was waging war, yet they couldn't be bothered to chip in a little even for that.

Only conservatives voted for the wars and their funding?

No, but they were the ones who balked at tax increases to fund them. There were many Dems who argued we shouldn't balloon the deficit by not incresing taxes to fund them and I sure don't remember hearing any Republicans agreeing with them.

That argument holds no water.
The authorization to military actions in both Iraq and Afghanistan were bi partisan.
BTW, the Libyan theatre is also unfunded( according to you) why did Obama not stop to consider the expenses for that?

 

[Contumacious]

We as a free country are doomed. B]To many people on the government tit now and will vote against those of us WHO PAY TAXES..[/B]

The income tax law under consideration is marked by discriminating features which affect the whole law. It discriminates between those who receive an income of $4,000 and those who do not. It thus vitiates, in my judgment, by this arbitrary discrimination, the whole legislation. Hamilton says in one of his papers (the Continentalist): 'The genius of liberty reprobates everything arbitrary or discretionary in taxation. It exacts that every man, by a definite and general rule, should know what proportion of his property the state demands; whatever liberty we may boast of in theory, it cannot exist in fact while [arbitrary] assessments continue.' 1 Hamilton's Works (Ed. 1885) 270. The legislation, in the discrimination it makes, is class legislation. Whenever a distinction is made in the burdens a law imposes or in the benefits it confers on any citizens by reason of their birth, or wealth, or religion, it is class legislation, and leads inevitably to oppression and abuses, and to general unrest and disturbance in society.

SCOTUS declared the First Income Tax UNCONSTITUTIONAL

U.S. Supreme Court
POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

 

[EriktheRed]

Only conservatives voted for the wars and their funding?

No, but they were the ones who balked at tax increases to fund them. There were many Dems who argued we shouldn't balloon the deficit by not incresing taxes to fund them and I sure don't remember hearing any Republicans agreeing with them.

That argument holds no water.
The authorization to military actions in both Iraq and Afghanistan were bi partisan.
BTW, the Libyan theatre is also unfunded( according to you) why did Obama not stop to consider the expenses for that?

Good question. Doesn't negate how curious (kinda stupid, actually) it is that cons don't even want to fund the parts of government they feel to be legit anymore.

Edit:Actually, that should be actions of government - like waging war - since they obviously have no problem funding the military.

 

[Trajan]

Not me. I have no problem giving back. I was born in the US, and thanks to incredible luck and hard work I have never wanted for anything. I'm perfectly happy giving up discretionary spending and I think everyone else should be too in these tough times.

Give up your Starbucks/Dunkin' Donuts.

It really isn't that hard.

Nor I. Get rid of the Bush Tax cuts. For everyone.

They were galactically stupid to begin with.

Yes they were. I happen to run across an interesting article from 2004.

Bush quietly signs corporate tax-cut bill - Business - Stocks & economy - msnbc.com

Enjoy.

Yes, Enjoy.

February 12, 2010 3:21 PM

Behind closed doors and with no cameras present, President Obama signed into law Friday afternoon the bill raising the public debt limit from $12.394 trillion to $14.294 trillion.

President Obama Signs Law Raising Public Debt Limit from $12.4 Trillion to $14.3 Trillion - Political Punch

 

[saveliberty]

No, but they were the ones who balked at tax increases to fund them. There were many Dems who argued we shouldn't balloon the deficit by not incresing taxes to fund them and I sure don't remember hearing any Republicans agreeing with them.

That argument holds no water.
The authorization to military actions in both Iraq and Afghanistan were bi partisan.
BTW, the Libyan theatre is also unfunded( according to you) why did Obama not stop to consider the expenses for that?

Good question. Doesn't negate how curious (kinda stupid, actually) it is that cons don't even want to fund the parts of government they feel to be legit anymore.

Edit:Actually, that should be actions of government - like waging war - since they obviously have no problem funding the military.

Brought down by a simple question Erik. I have several more, but not today.

 

[EriktheRed]

That argument holds no water.
The authorization to military actions in both Iraq and Afghanistan were bi partisan.
BTW, the Libyan theatre is also unfunded( according to you) why did Obama not stop to consider the expenses for that?

Good question. Doesn't negate how curious (kinda stupid, actually) it is that cons don't even want to fund the parts of government they feel to be legit anymore.

Edit:Actually, that should be actions of government - like waging war - since they obviously have no problem funding the military.

Brought down by a simple question Erik. I have several more, but not today.

Well, when you get back, maybe you can explain why raising taxes to fight wars - even those they support - is no longer acceptable to Cons.