Taxes: Fair compromise?

[asterism]

What is Obama's credibility about cutting spending, having grown government 24% in two years?

LINK PLEASE to substantiate your 24% in 2 years.....(i won't hold my breath)

obama's first butget was the fiscal 2010 budget which ended 2 months ago, and he reduced the deficit from Bush's last fiscal budget from 2009 by about 50 billion.

maybe you need to familiarize your self with the US fiscal budget

Obama's first spending was in March 2009. Bush's FY 2009 budget was never enacted. We've been over this before.

 

[Care4all]

What is Obama's credibility about cutting spending, having grown government 24% in two years?

LINK PLEASE to substantiate your 24% in 2 years.....(i won't hold my breath)

obama's first butget was the fiscal 2010 budget which ended 2 months ago, and he reduced the deficit from Bush's last fiscal budget from 2009 by about 50 billion.

maybe you need to familiarize your self with the US fiscal budget

Obama's first spending was in March 2009. Bush's FY 2009 budget was never enacted. We've been over this before.

Yes Aster, we have been over this before, and this does not change the facts...the budget of 2009, which began Oct 1 2008 belongs to to President Bush, it is his las fiscal year of responsibility....

and just as obama for 2009, bush was in this position for the fiscal 2001 budget, which is attributed to Clinton's last fiscal budget....even though President Bush made some changes to it that changed it and added to the budget...

all of the bailouts from 2008 including TARP and the initial auto bail out, and the fannie and freddie rescue and the goldman sachs rescue and so on and so forth took place under the Bush, fiscal 2009 budget.

Care

 

[editec]

What difference does it make that working people get a slight break for the next few years?

If the GOP gains control of things we all know they'll be voting to dramtically increase the deficit with more tax breaks for billionaires that will add to the national debt.

Curring taxes on the superrich and bankrupting the government is their reason d etat

 

[asterism]

LINK PLEASE to substantiate your 24% in 2 years.....(i won't hold my breath)

obama's first butget was the fiscal 2010 budget which ended 2 months ago, and he reduced the deficit from Bush's last fiscal budget from 2009 by about 50 billion.

maybe you need to familiarize your self with the US fiscal budget

Obama's first spending was in March 2009. Bush's FY 2009 budget was never enacted. We've been over this before.

Yes Aster, we have been over this before, and this does not change the facts...the budget of 2009, which began Oct 1 2008 belongs to to President Bush, it is his las fiscal year of responsibility....

and just as obama for 2009, bush was in this position for the fiscal 2001 budget, which is attributed to Clinton's last fiscal budget....even though President Bush made some changes to it that changed it and added to the budget...

all of the bailouts from 2008 including TARP and the initial auto bail out, and the fannie and freddie rescue and the goldman sachs rescue and so on and so forth took place under the Bush, fiscal 2009 budget.

Care

Congress only appropriated money for government operations under Bush for FY2009 until March 2009. Obama got to hit the ground running and immediately get his priorities passed in subsequent Congressional appropriations. The spending from March 2009 on are his and Congress', not Bush's.

You are correct that the initial bailouts and the TARP failure are Bush's fault.

 

[theHawk]

The House Dems just basically voted to allow every American to continue paying today's lower tax rates on the first $250,000 of their income.

Do you believe this is a fair compromise given the deficits we have racked up in the past several years?

No, deficits are created by spending more money than you bring in, not by a tax rate - whether it be 10% or 50% or anywhere in between.

 

[Care4all]

Obama's first spending was in March 2009. Bush's FY 2009 budget was never enacted. We've been over this before.

Yes Aster, we have been over this before, and this does not change the facts...the budget of 2009, which began Oct 1 2008 belongs to to President Bush, it is his las fiscal year of responsibility....

and just as obama for 2009, bush was in this position for the fiscal 2001 budget, which is attributed to Clinton's last fiscal budget....even though President Bush made some changes to it that changed it and added to the budget...

all of the bailouts from 2008 including TARP and the initial auto bail out, and the fannie and freddie rescue and the goldman sachs rescue and so on and so forth took place under the Bush, fiscal 2009 budget.

Care

Congress only appropriated money for government operations under Bush for FY2009 until March 2009. Obama got to hit the ground running and immediately get his priorities passed in subsequent Congressional appropriations. The spending from March 2009 on are his and Congress', not Bush's.

You are correct that the initial bailouts and the TARP failure are Bush's fault.

that's just bulloney Aster.... the operations of our government and the legislation and measures taken in late 2008 like the bail outs and TARP, CONTINUE to be paid out after March 2009....for goodness sakes!!!

Fiscal 2009 IS AND WILL ALWAYS BE attributed to President Bush. You can NOT change the rules that have been in place for decades and centuries.... midstream, for your own political posturing....no matter how hard you try.....you really can't....

 

[GHook93]

The House Dems just basically voted to allow every American to continue paying today's lower tax rates on the first $250,000 of their income.

Do you believe this is a fair compromise given the deficits we have racked up in the past several years?

How could one of the stupidest things to do be a fair compromise?

A fair or SMART compromise would be $999,999 and below or at the very least $750K and below!

 

[GHook93]

More taxes = More spending. How simple can this be?

so then we never pay off the national debt?

With our current govt that is a given.
And think about it a bit, the banks love our debt up to a point.
They get lots of money off of treasury bond sales.

Your so clueless!!!

 

[The T]

Isn't it interesting that Statists are now speaking Compromise now that they have had their collective asses handed to them...when just months ago the people were told by the same Statists to piss off that it was the Statists' way or the highway?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Obama ran up $2T in new debt and now wants someone else to pay for it.

I thought Congress controlled the purse strings.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The House Dems just basically voted to allow every American to continue paying today's lower tax rates on the first $250,000 of their income.

Do you believe this is a fair compromise given the deficits we have racked up in the past several years?

No, as mentioned already, we don't have a taxation problem. We have a spending problem. The government needs to learn to live within its means like all of us have to.

However, if the Republicans cannot get the tax rates continued for everyone then I think they should accept the Schumer compromise, which was let them expire for everyone with an income over one million dollars.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

The problem is not how much money the government receives, but how much it spends.
Right now, the US Government is spening 40% more than it takes in.

The other misnomer, is the absurd opinion that if/when taxes are raised that spending will stay the same.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Obama ran up $2T in new debt and now wants someone else to pay for it.

I thought Congress controlled the purse strings.

Well, the Congress was controlled by his party, wasn't it? In fact, they had a filibuster proof majority. I'm not sure pointing out that reality is any better for you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is just another case of where the crackpot 60 vote rule in the Senate lets the obstructionist Republicans thwart the will of the people.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Obama ran up $2T in new debt and now wants someone else to pay for it.

I thought Congress controlled the purse strings.

Well, the Congress was controlled by his party, wasn't it? In fact, they had a filibuster proof majority. I'm not sure pointing out that reality is any better for you.

There's no such thing as a filibuster proof majority.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

This is just another case of where the crackpot 60 vote rule in the Senate lets the obstructionist Republicans thwart the will of the people.

Yes, just like the Democrats did when the Republicans were in control, but I'm sure that was just dandy when they did it, right?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I thought Congress controlled the purse strings.

Well, the Congress was controlled by his party, wasn't it? In fact, they had a filibuster proof majority. I'm not sure pointing out that reality is any better for you.

There's no such thing as a filibuster proof majority.

Uh... yeah there is. It's called one party having 60 senators and them banning together to vote the same way, but you already knew this, so stop lying.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The problem is not how much money the government receives, but how much it spends.
Right now, the US Government is spening 40% more than it takes in.

The other misnomer, is the absurd opinion that if/when taxes are raised that spending will stay the same.

Every time taxes have been cut in the last 30 years, deficits have risen. The few times taxes have been raised, deficits have fallen.

Starving the beast is proven failure. You can't starve the beast when the beast has a credit card.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, the Congress was controlled by his party, wasn't it? In fact, they had a filibuster proof majority. I'm not sure pointing out that reality is any better for you.

There's no such thing as a filibuster proof majority.

Uh... yeah there is. It's called one party having 60 senators and them banning together to vote the same way, but you already knew this, so stop lying.

Since the Democrats HAD that and still couldn't stop filibusters, that PROVES there's no such thing as a filibuster proof majority.

The idea of filibuster proof is just some idiot talking point mostly used by the media. The reason there is no such thing as a filibuster proof majority is that no Senator is in any way obligated to vote with his party.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

You can't starve the beast when the beast has a credit card.

Excellent point.