Stupid Committee Failing Because Dems Want Tax Increases & A Promise To Cut Spending

[Cuyo]

No..they won't. Many republicans are ALREADY saying they will oppose the trigger.

So much for keeping your word.

Obama has already stated he will veto any attempt to overide the trigger. So he just gave the taxpayers another reason to vote him out.

He can't veto dick if he's out of office.

That seems to please you. Does that mean you want the triggers to be overridden so we can continue to borrow?

That's very liberal of you.

 

[Oddball]

The mathematics of the situation point to the fact that taxes are recklessly low...

Horseshit.

The feds are taking in on the order of $2.5 TRILLION a year.

 

[bripat9643]

"millionaires and billionaires" are not the top 10%. They are more like the top 0.1%. Of course, we all know Democrats want to increase taxes on anyone who makes over $75,000. They figure those people are voting Republican anyway.

I'm not going to split hairs about what constitutes 'Rich.' That's been done to death here.

The point is that apocryphal claims that government debt or spending has exceeded manageable levels are easily defeated. The mathematics of the situation point to the fact that taxes are recklessly low and our trade policies too lackadaisical.

Taxes are not "ridiculously low." Our corporate taxes are the 2nd highest in the world.

Of course, a leftwing demagogue like you doesn't want to "split hairs." You want to lie and not get called on it.

 

[Cuyo]

The mathematics of the situation point to the fact that taxes are recklessly low...

Horseshit.

The feds are taking in on the order of $2.5 TRILLION a year.

You're including transfer payments. In fact, if you disregard transfer payments as you probably should, you'll find that the lion's share of spending is in fact military.

 

[bripat9643]

That seems to please you. Does that mean you want the triggers to be overridden so we can continue to borrow?

That's very liberal of you.

No, he just wants Obama booted out of office. I want the triggers to stay put.

 

[Cuyo]

"millionaires and billionaires" are not the top 10%. They are more like the top 0.1%. Of course, we all know Democrats want to increase taxes on anyone who makes over $75,000. They figure those people are voting Republican anyway.

I'm not going to split hairs about what constitutes 'Rich.' That's been done to death here.

The point is that apocryphal claims that government debt or spending has exceeded manageable levels are easily defeated. The mathematics of the situation point to the fact that taxes are recklessly low and our trade policies too lackadaisical.

Taxes are not "ridiculously low." Our corporate taxes are the 2nd highest in the world.

Of course, a leftwing demagogue like you doesn't want to "split hairs." You want to lie and not get called on it.

And the effective corporate tax rate is near the bottom. But that's not really relevant. Corporate taxes are <10% of the pie.

 

[bripat9643]

Horseshit.

The feds are taking in on the order of $2.5 TRILLION a year.

You're including transfer payments. In fact, if you disregard transfer payments as you probably should, you'll find that the lion's share of spending is in fact military.

So, if you ignore over half the taxes we pay, then taxes are "ridiculously low."

Only a libturd with his head firmly immersed in the Kool-Aid could post anything as stupid as that.

 

[Cuyo]

That seems to please you. Does that mean you want the triggers to be overridden so we can continue to borrow?

That's very liberal of you.

No, he just wants Obama booted out of office. I want the triggers to stay put.

Yes it's obviously confused and didn't want any opportunity to take a shot at Obama to go to waste.

And 10-4, I want them to stay in place too. And I'd love it if this could be solved without that having to happen. But listen carefully; They are not going to make it without tax increases.







No, stop right there: They ARE NOT going to make it without tax increases.

 

[Cuyo]

Horseshit.

The feds are taking in on the order of $2.5 TRILLION a year.

You're including transfer payments. In fact, if you disregard transfer payments as you probably should, you'll find that the lion's share of spending is in fact military.

So, if you ignore over half the taxes we pay, then taxes are "ridiculously low."

Only a libturd with his head firmly immersed in the Kool-Aid could post anything as stupid as that.

Transfer payments are not really 'Spending' in the traditional sense.

And you've now twice referenced 'ridiculously low,' whereas what I said was 'recklessly low.' They wouldn't be 'ridiculously low' if they were comparable to our outlays, but they're not. They are generating revenue far, far below our outlays, ergo it's reckless policy.

 

[Oddball]

The mathematics of the situation point to the fact that taxes are recklessly low...

Horseshit.

The feds are taking in on the order of $2.5 TRILLION a year.

You're including transfer payments. In fact, if you disregard transfer payments as you probably should, you'll find that the lion's share of spending is in fact military.

Irrelevant to the fact.

While military spending could indeed be cut significantly, the notion that more than $2.5 trillion of expropriation from the productive, in order to feather the nests of the unproductive and the bureaucracy (an admitted redundancy), is purely asinine.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Stupid Committee Failing Because Dems Want Tax Increases & A Promise To Cut Spending

The stupidly had little to do with the committee per se, the epicenter of stupidity is the House, incapable of responsible governance – the ‘super committee’ an inane and pointless consequence of republican incompetence and arrogance.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes it's obviously confused and didn't want any opportunity to take a shot at Obama to go to waste..

From the conservative point of view, it's a WIN/WIN situation. The automatic spending cuts remain law, and Obama suffers politically as a result. Who could have wished for anything better than that?

And 10-4, I want them to stay in place too. And I'd love it if this could be solved without that having to happen. But listen carefully; They are not going to make it without tax increases.

No, stop right there: They ARE NOT going to make it without tax increases.

Only if the Democrats manage to remain in office.

 

[Cuyo]

Horseshit.

The feds are taking in on the order of $2.5 TRILLION a year.

You're including transfer payments. In fact, if you disregard transfer payments as you probably should, you'll find that the lion's share of spending is in fact military.

Irrelevant to the fact.

While military spending could indeed be cut significantly, the notion that more than $2.5 trillion of expropriation from the productive, in order to feather the nests of the unproductive and the bureaucracy (an admitted redundancy), is purely asinine.

Well lookit, let me play devil's advocate here. What is the result of a significant cut in spending? Doesn't matter, military, education, SSI, or the Department of Pinstripe Shirt Symmetry - They all employ people. Those people they employ all pull a paycheck and spend it in the private sector. Every dollar of spending 'Cut' comes directly off of our GDP once, and probably many times over due to the multiplier effect.

I don't know exactly how far you want to go on the slash and burn scale, but my impression is that it's pretty far, and I'm sure you feel that by cutting taxes further you could stimulate the economy therefore more receipts yada yada... Ok. Assuming the economy is unharmed by the cuts, we have to cut over a trillion a year, to be consrvative let's say that you're shaving around 7% of GDP - And that's before you've considered the loss of a single job, or had the ability to cut a single tax.

This is why economists roll their eyes at the concept of cutting our way out of this deficit. It ain't gonna happen.

 

[bripat9643]

Well lookit, let me play devil's advocate here. What is the result of a significant cut in spending? Doesn't matter, military, education, SSI, or the Department of Pinstripe Shirt Symmetry - They all employ people. Those people they employ all pull a paycheck and spend it in the private sector. Every dollar of spending 'Cut' comes directly off of our GDP once, and probably many times over due to the multiplier effect.

I don't know exactly how far you want to go on the slash and burn scale, but my impression is that it's pretty far, and I'm sure you feel that by cutting taxes further you could stimulate the economy therefore more receipts yada yada... Ok. Assuming the economy is unharmed by the cuts, we have to cut over a trillion a year, to be consrvative let's say that you're shaving around 7% of GDP - And that's before you've considered the loss of a single job, or had the ability to cut a single tax.

This is why economists roll their eyes at the concept of cutting our way out of this deficit. It ain't gonna happen.

Yiou haven't posted anything that makes the eyes of any genuine economist roll. Government spending doesn't "stimulate" jack without also depressing elsewhere by an equal or greater amount. Furthermore, when government spending is increased, money that used to go to productive enterprises is now being flushed down the toilet and produces nothing of any value to anyone.

 

[Oddball]

Well lookit, let me play devil's advocate here. What is the result of a significant cut in spending? Doesn't matter, military, education, SSI, or the Department of Pinstripe Shirt Symmetry - They all employ people. Those people they employ all pull a paycheck and spend it in the private sector. Every dollar of spending 'Cut' comes directly off of our GDP once, and probably many times over due to the multiplier effect.

I don't know exactly how far you want to go on the slash and burn scale, but my impression is that it's pretty far, and I'm sure you feel that by cutting taxes further you could stimulate the economy therefore more receipts yada yada... Ok. Assuming the economy is unharmed by the cuts, we have to cut over a trillion a year, to be consrvative let's say that you're shaving around 7% of GDP - And that's before you've considered the loss of a single job, or had the ability to cut a single tax.

This is why economists roll their eyes at the concept of cutting our way out of this deficit. It ain't gonna happen.

They "employ people" at what costs to whom?

Do you think the money to pay all the moochers and bureaucrats comes from Lucky the goddamn leprechaun, and his pot of gold at the end of the rainbow?

 

[Wacky Quacky]

So Obama looked happy that the Stupid Committee came to no agreement.

This was just meant to make it look like the Republicans are standing in the way.

That's his plan. Make it look like he's the only reasonable person in Washington.

And of course he blamed the whole thing on the Republicans, as predicted, then left without answering a question. Sounded like he had the speech written months ago.

Worthless piece of shit.

If you're so wise to know the plan, certainly the Republican reps should be even wiser.

Why then would they not just walk but leap and run right into that "trap" set by Obama so readily then?

Could it be because Obama didn't make them do JackShat? THEY are the ones making themselves look useless, worthless and intransigent.

Personal responsibility RWers, personal responsibility.

Republicans ran towards the idea because this was a bi-partisan smoke and mirror effort to keep spending where it is, and prepare the sheep for election season.

Anyone who thinks Republicans and Democrats are enemies is blind. They're partners who work together against all of us to keep themselves in power and maintain the status-quo.

 

[mudwhistle]

Obama has already stated he will veto any attempt to overide the trigger. So he just gave the taxpayers another reason to vote him out.

He can't veto dick if he's out of office.

That seems to please you. Does that mean you want the triggers to be overridden so we can continue to borrow?

That's very liberal of you.

That's a false assumption.

Once he's gone the triggers won't matter because it will be a different Congress. The point being that at least without that skinny fuck being in the White House there will be some hope of getting the debt paid down.

 

[mudwhistle]

That seems to please you. Does that mean you want the triggers to be overridden so we can continue to borrow?

That's very liberal of you.

No, he just wants Obama booted out of office. I want the triggers to stay put.

Yes it's obviously confused and didn't want any opportunity to take a shot at Obama to go to waste.

And 10-4, I want them to stay in place too. And I'd love it if this could be solved without that having to happen. But listen carefully; They are not going to make it without tax increases.







No, stop right there: They ARE NOT going to make it without tax increases.

So they intentionally spent us into this mess so they could raise everyone's taxes???


Glad you could admit that.

 

[mudwhistle]

Stupid Committee Failing Because Dems Want Tax Increases & A Promise To Cut Spending

The stupidly had little to do with the committee per se, the epicenter of stupidity is the House, incapable of responsible governance – the ‘super committee’ an inane and pointless consequence of republican incompetence and arrogance.

The House is the only branch doing anything. The Senate and the President are just talking smack while the House passes one bill after another.

That junk bill Obama signed today was simply a false-leader. He thinks that somebody who doesn't need new hires because of a terrible economy is gonna want $2500 to hire a vet. It's a gimmick. How much does it cost to hire a new employee? Workman's comp alone would eat that up.

 

[Cuyo]

No, he just wants Obama booted out of office. I want the triggers to stay put.

Yes it's obviously confused and didn't want any opportunity to take a shot at Obama to go to waste.

And 10-4, I want them to stay in place too. And I'd love it if this could be solved without that having to happen. But listen carefully; They are not going to make it without tax increases.







No, stop right there: They ARE NOT going to make it without tax increases.

So they intentionally spent us into this mess so they could raise everyone's taxes???


Glad you could admit that.

Sorry, no sale. It was your guys who cut the taxes and increased the spending.