Poll on tax cuts: for everyone or for under $250k only

[thereisnospoon]

So, if I understand this predicament, everyone wants the economy chugging along again. The American consumer and his spending drives the economy. Some folks still push the tired old trickle down argument that cutting taxes for millionaires and billionaires will stimulate the economy. Why? Because those millionaires and billionaires create jobs.

But then wasn't it consumer spending that drives the economy? Will those millionaires and billionaires spend their tax cuts and thus stimulate the economy? And those jobs the rich create, why haven't they created them in America instead of China?

If the consumer drives the economy, wouldn't putting as much money in the hands of the most people do the most good?

Are Conservatives convinced that if they kowtow to the rich, maybe they too can become rich? Why can't Conservatives admit what is so apparent? Consumer spending is what makes the economy go round. The flow of capital from one hand to another is what grows the economy. The rich can't possibly spend the way the middle class can. Why? Because there aren't as many rich as there are middle class consumers.

Cut deficits? Great! But just as cats can be skinned in many ways, deficits can be reduced by raising the tax rates on the rich to the same levels they were during the Clinton years (and we all remember how well the American economy was doing then) coupled with reducing spending all across the board. I'm looking at you, defense contractors!

Screw the rich. It's been all gravy for them since W and "Compassionate Conservatism" helped drive manufacturing out of America and into Asia.

People with means, not only the wealthy open businesses which create jobs. Those people in turn spend their earnings which in turn allows shopkeepers to hire more workers which then introduces more working/taxpaying people into the system and so on.
See where this is going? If that is not too difficult to understand.
You lefties just refuse to acknowledge that the majority of wealthy people vote democrat and contribute to liberal causes. In fact democrats in Congress are very wealthy people.
Where the greatest concentration of wealth in this country lies is precisely where we find the greatest concentration of democrat voters.
This notion that all people with an above average amount of money in the bank automatically vote GOP is a myth.
But you and those like you will continue to buy into class envy because many of you cannot stand it that someone has more than you.

 

[Article 15]

Because Bush's deficits were around $400B, and Obama's are around $1T.

Why didn't Obama pay that "piper?"

So are you conceding that deficits were not on the decline during the Bush admin like you claimed?

The first trillion dollar deficit is on Bush. The FY2009 budget is his.

As to Obama's trillion dollar deficit in FY2010, I'm not happy with that either. Hello? Spending cuts and tax increases ... it's what I am calling for here while you want to play partisan games.

Deficits were on the decline until Republicans ceased to control Congress.

Is running up a trillion in new debt for two years then demanding Republicans pay for it a "partisan game?"

Yeah, it is.

No, deficits were not on the decline. The wars were kept off the books. Don't think you are going to try make the same point less than a page after it's been debunked and get away with it.

And again ... one of those two trillion dollar deficits was Bush's. So, no, I'm not the one playing partisan games here. You are. You are trying to saddle this all on the Dems ... the debt/deficit is bipartisan.

 

[rdean]

Because Bush's deficits were around $400B, and Obama's are around $1T.

Why didn't Obama pay that "piper?"

So are you conceding that deficits were not on the decline during the Bush admin like you claimed?

The first trillion dollar deficit is on Bush. The FY2009 budget is his.

As to Obama's trillion dollar deficit in FY2010, I'm not happy with that either. Hello? Spending cuts and tax increases ... it's what I am calling for here while you want to play partisan games.

Deficits were on the decline until Republicans ceased to control Congress.

Is running up a trillion in new debt for two years then demanding Republicans pay for it a "partisan game?"

Yeah, it is.

This is the second most retarded thing you ever said. From 2001 to 2008, Republicans helped move millions of jobs to China. The 2.4 trillion dollar tax break, with more then 52% going to the top 1% was not offset. Then the "Drugs for Votes" bill added another couple of trillion. Then the two unpaid for wars another three trillion at least not to mention the cost of taking care of tens of thousands of Americans who have been maimed and the deficit was on the way down? Fool. And you know, there is no way the Republican leadership wants to take care of injured Americans. They shit on the middle class, they won't want to take care of a bunch of wounded soldiers. They've got millionaires to worry about.

You are something else.

 

[Oddball]

It's true.

Obama spent like a drunken sailor for two years now he wants someone else to pay for it.

Bush spent like a drunken sailor....As did Bubba....As did Poppy Bush....As did Reagan....As did Peanuts.....

Yet still, there are people who will keep telling us that we can have everything at the expense of everyone else....And there are still people gullible enough to believe it.

 

[Revere]

So are you conceding that deficits were not on the decline during the Bush admin like you claimed?

The first trillion dollar deficit is on Bush. The FY2009 budget is his.

As to Obama's trillion dollar deficit in FY2010, I'm not happy with that either. Hello? Spending cuts and tax increases ... it's what I am calling for here while you want to play partisan games.

Deficits were on the decline until Republicans ceased to control Congress.

Is running up a trillion in new debt for two years then demanding Republicans pay for it a "partisan game?"

Yeah, it is.

No, deficits were not on the decline. The wars were kept off the books. Don't think you are going to try make the same point less than a page after it's been debunked and get away with it.

And again ... one of those two trillion dollar deficits was Bush's. So, no, I'm not the one playing partisan games here. You are. You are trying to saddle this all on the Dems ... the debt/deficit is bipartisan.

All of it was the Democrat Congress.

Yeah, they were on the decline. Pull any chart that says otherwise.

And Obama had off budget war and other spending.

The Dems can't stop spending. It should be saddled on them.

 

[uscitizen]

No tax cuts for anyone.

 

[rdean]

So, if I understand this predicament, everyone wants the economy chugging along again. The American consumer and his spending drives the economy. Some folks still push the tired old trickle down argument that cutting taxes for millionaires and billionaires will stimulate the economy. Why? Because those millionaires and billionaires create jobs.

But then wasn't it consumer spending that drives the economy? Will those millionaires and billionaires spend their tax cuts and thus stimulate the economy? And those jobs the rich create, why haven't they created them in America instead of China?

If the consumer drives the economy, wouldn't putting as much money in the hands of the most people do the most good?

Are Conservatives convinced that if they kowtow to the rich, maybe they too can become rich? Why can't Conservatives admit what is so apparent? Consumer spending is what makes the economy go round. The flow of capital from one hand to another is what grows the economy. The rich can't possibly spend the way the middle class can. Why? Because there aren't as many rich as there are middle class consumers.

Cut deficits? Great! But just as cats can be skinned in many ways, deficits can be reduced by raising the tax rates on the rich to the same levels they were during the Clinton years (and we all remember how well the American economy was doing then) coupled with reducing spending all across the board. I'm looking at you, defense contractors!

Screw the rich. It's been all gravy for them since W and "Compassionate Conservatism" helped drive manufacturing out of America and into Asia.

People with means, not only the wealthy open businesses which create jobs. Those people in turn spend their earnings which in turn allows shopkeepers to hire more workers which then introduces more working/taxpaying people into the system and so on.
See where this is going? If that is not too difficult to understand.
You lefties just refuse to acknowledge that the majority of wealthy people vote democrat and contribute to liberal causes. In fact democrats in Congress are very wealthy people.
Where the greatest concentration of wealth in this country lies is precisely where we find the greatest concentration of democrat voters.
This notion that all people with an above average amount of money in the bank automatically vote GOP is a myth.
But you and those like you will continue to buy into class envy because many of you cannot stand it that someone has more than you.

People only hire when people are buying. Get it? No one hires for "fun". If no one is buying, no one gets hired.

 

[Revere]

No tax cuts for anyone.

Whose taxes would be cut?

 

[Revere]

Nobody buys if everyone gets poorer.

 

[Nosmo King]

So, if I understand this predicament, everyone wants the economy chugging along again. The American consumer and his spending drives the economy. Some folks still push the tired old trickle down argument that cutting taxes for millionaires and billionaires will stimulate the economy. Why? Because those millionaires and billionaires create jobs.

But then wasn't it consumer spending that drives the economy? Will those millionaires and billionaires spend their tax cuts and thus stimulate the economy? And those jobs the rich create, why haven't they created them in America instead of China?

If the consumer drives the economy, wouldn't putting as much money in the hands of the most people do the most good?

Are Conservatives convinced that if they kowtow to the rich, maybe they too can become rich? Why can't Conservatives admit what is so apparent? Consumer spending is what makes the economy go round. The flow of capital from one hand to another is what grows the economy. The rich can't possibly spend the way the middle class can. Why? Because there aren't as many rich as there are middle class consumers.

Cut deficits? Great! But just as cats can be skinned in many ways, deficits can be reduced by raising the tax rates on the rich to the same levels they were during the Clinton years (and we all remember how well the American economy was doing then) coupled with reducing spending all across the board. I'm looking at you, defense contractors!

Screw the rich. It's been all gravy for them since W and "Compassionate Conservatism" helped drive manufacturing out of America and into Asia.

People with means, not only the wealthy open businesses which create jobs. Those people in turn spend their earnings which in turn allows shopkeepers to hire more workers which then introduces more working/taxpaying people into the system and so on.
See where this is going? If that is not too difficult to understand.
You lefties just refuse to acknowledge that the majority of wealthy people vote democrat and contribute to liberal causes. In fact democrats in Congress are very wealthy people.
Where the greatest concentration of wealth in this country lies is precisely where we find the greatest concentration of democrat voters.
This notion that all people with an above average amount of money in the bank automatically vote GOP is a myth.
But you and those like you will continue to buy into class envy because many of you cannot stand it that someone has more than you.

I give put as much money in the hands of the most people do the most good, and you give class envy. Sheesh! How about an argument against putting as much money in the hands of the most people do the most good?

Or do you really believe that those with means will open shop in America not Shanghai?

 

[Article 15]

There's no way to tax your way out of gross overspending.

The spending is and will remain the problem.

I understand that which is why I advocate increasing taxes and cutting spending.

Taxes are already at insanely high levels....The federal rates are only a fraction of the story.

The problem remains spending.

I disagree that taxes are at insanely high levels but I agree that the main problem is spending. When the spending results in $13 trillion in debt and a $1.3 trillion deficit then the solution has to be a combo of tax increases and spending cuts. Time to pay the piper.

 

[Revere]

I understand that which is why I advocate increasing taxes and cutting spending.

Taxes are already at insanely high levels....The federal rates are only a fraction of the story.

The problem remains spending.

I disagree that taxes are at insanely high levels but I agree that the main problem is spending. When the spending results in $13 trillion in debt and a $1.3 trillion deficit then the solution has to be a combo of tax increases and spending cuts. Time to pay the piper.

Why didn't Obama "pay the piper" for two years?

 

[Revere]

Spending should be cut to pre-Obama levels. Obama is "the piper."

 

[Article 15]

Deficits were on the decline until Republicans ceased to control Congress.

Is running up a trillion in new debt for two years then demanding Republicans pay for it a "partisan game?"

Yeah, it is.

No, deficits were not on the decline. The wars were kept off the books. Don't think you are going to try make the same point less than a page after it's been debunked and get away with it.

And again ... one of those two trillion dollar deficits was Bush's. So, no, I'm not the one playing partisan games here. You are. You are trying to saddle this all on the Dems ... the debt/deficit is bipartisan.

All of it was the Democrat Congress.

Not true but you knew that. Besides the Bush admin submitted the budget and signed it. Like I said, bipartisan.

Yeah, they were on the decline. Pull any chart that says otherwise.

No, they weren't. You repeating it doesn't make it so. The wars were kept off the books.

And Obama had off budget war and other spending.

False.

The Dems can't stop spending. It should be saddled on them.

Pure partisan nonsense.

 

[Nosmo King]

Taxes are already at insanely high levels....The federal rates are only a fraction of the story.

The problem remains spending.

I disagree that taxes are at insanely high levels but I agree that the main problem is spending. When the spending results in $13 trillion in debt and a $1.3 trillion deficit then the solution has to be a combo of tax increases and spending cuts. Time to pay the piper.

Why didn't Obama "pay the piper" for two years?

I know!! Because lax oversite on Wall Street (thanks Sen. Phil Gramm (R) Texas, Chairman of the Senate banking Committee!) allowed them to bundle mortgages into derivatives, make huge profits and collapse the world economy. In order to prime the pump, Obama had to act as the customer of last resort and move capital through the economy.

 

[Revere]

 

[thereisnospoon]

No need to compromise with losers who were swept out of power.

That's the spirit! Dig in your heels! Gridlock and bitter partisanship! That'll solve our nation's problems! The answer is petulance, and a shitload of it!

idiot.

Hey genius. Where was all this talk about bi-partisanship when the democrats controlled the legislative branch?
Guess what? It didn't God damn exist.
SO now the shoe is on the other foot and you people are screaming about compromise.
Well, screw that. The last time the GOP reached across the aisle the dems cracked the GOP across the knuckles with a ruler.
You people will just have to take a seat on the porch and the let the big dogs run the show now. Your side had it's chance and it failed. That's why your side LOST the House majority.
Go do some reading.
The reason why the founders set up the government in the way it is was to prevent government from doing too much.
Have you any idea why the Senate filibuster rule exists? Go look it up..
Have you a clue as to why there are an equal number of Senators in the Upper Chamber yet a number of representatives in the House relative to the population of each State? Go look it up.
Stop posting this insipid class warfare drivel. It's boring.

 

[Revere]

I disagree that taxes are at insanely high levels but I agree that the main problem is spending. When the spending results in $13 trillion in debt and a $1.3 trillion deficit then the solution has to be a combo of tax increases and spending cuts. Time to pay the piper.

Why didn't Obama "pay the piper" for two years?

I know!! Because lax oversite on Wall Street (thanks Sen. Phil Gramm (R) Texas, Chairman of the Senate banking Committee!) allowed them to bundle mortgages into derivatives, make huge profits and collapse the world economy. In order to prime the pump, Obama had to act as the customer of last resort and move capital through the economy.

Who told banks to make loans to borrowers who could not repay?

 

[Revere]

Why be "bi-partisan" with with a party whose ideas got their asses kicked?

Partisan? Damn straight.

We won.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Two wars without a tax increase. Blame Obama? LEARN RECENT HISTORY!!!!

Deficits held steady, and were on the way down until 2008.

The cost of both were kept off the books, pedal that nonsense somewhere else.

Prove it. show some links. Failing that ,your post is bullshit.