Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So the lack of an amendment kept them from levying the tax needed to pay for the wars they determined needed to be done?
Dear, if their had been a Constitutional Amendment it would have been illegal to wage war without taxing to pay for it!!! Notice how the easiest concepts are far over a liberal's head??
That's bullshit! None of these have ever said that they would not cut taxes and send us back into a tailspin at the first chance they get, these guys are just trying to hock the country to the bankers so they can own it all.
too stupid of course!! With a Republican Balanced Amendment what you describe would be illegal!! Newts passed the house and fell one vote short in the Senate . In fact, tax and waste Democrats killed all 30 BBA's since Jefferson.
BTW you're just another sheep being led to the slaughter.
Jefferson was a genius not a sheep. That is why he founded the Republican Party in 1792. It is the only reason there is freedom on earth today, although what is left is severely threatened by Democrats who spied for Stalin and a president who had 2 communist parents.
Bullshit
Unrestrained spending got us into this mess.
Pretending we are the legions of Rome got us into this mess.
Turning the social safety net into a king size feather bed got us into this mess.
BTW you're just another sheep being led to the slaughter.
Jefferson was a genius not a sheep. That is why he founded the Republican Party in 1792. It is the only reason there is freedom on earth today, although what is left is severely threatened by Democrats who spied for Stalin and a president who had 2 communist parents.
it follows that a tax increase is what you do when Washington is taking in too little money
Bullshit
Unrestrained spending got us into this mess.
Pretending we are the legions of Rome got us into this mess.
Turning the social safety net into a king size feather bed got us into this mess.
Americans are paying historically low tax rates, when we had a balanced budget we slashed taxes and reestablished a debt, if cutting taxes was the right thing to do when Washington was taking in too much money, it follows that a tax increase is what you do when Washington is taking in too little money, to change your plan just because of the direction of the correction is a blatant political pandering move.
Do you know what SS tops out at? about $1800/mo that's a King sized feather bed? Where the hell you buying beds?
Bullshit
Unrestrained spending got us into this mess.
Pretending we are the legions of Rome got us into this mess.
Turning the social safety net into a king size feather bed got us into this mess.
Americans are paying historically low tax rates, when we had a balanced budget we slashed taxes and reestablished a debt, if cutting taxes was the right thing to do when Washington was taking in too much money, it follows that a tax increase is what you do when Washington is taking in too little money, to change your plan just because of the direction of the correction is a blatant political pandering move.
Do you know what SS tops out at? about $1800/mo that's a King sized feather bed? Where the hell you buying beds?
Americans are paying historically low tax rates
Really? Was the 28% top rate in 1988 higher than the current top rate of 35%?
Bullshit
Unrestrained spending got us into this mess.
Pretending we are the legions of Rome got us into this mess.
Turning the social safety net into a king size feather bed got us into this mess.
Americans are paying historically low tax rates, when we had a balanced budget we slashed taxes and reestablished a debt, if cutting taxes was the right thing to do when Washington was taking in too much money, it follows that a tax increase is what you do when Washington is taking in too little money, to change your plan just because of the direction of the correction is a blatant political pandering move.
Do you know what SS tops out at? about $1800/mo that's a King sized feather bed? Where the hell you buying beds?
Americans are paying historically low tax rates
Really? Was the 28% top rate in 1988 higher than the current top rate of 35%?
I think the conservative party of today, after going belly up twice, looked for a new name, something that had character, an honest image, and great reputation, after rejecting all the old conservative labels as unsavory, they grabbed onto one of the discarded liberal labels from the Jefferson age, Republican. The one thing the conservatives did not want was a name that reflected their real ideology like, The Corporate Party of America, or Money Talks Big Time Party.
I think the conservative party of today, after going belly up twice, looked for a new name, something that had character, an honest image, and great reputation, after rejecting all the old conservative labels as unsavory, they grabbed onto one of the discarded liberal labels from the Jefferson age, Republican. The one thing the conservatives did not want was a name that reflected their real ideology like, The Corporate Party of America, or Money Talks Big Time Party.
A con once suggested to me that people should get one vote for every thousand in tax they pay sort of lets you know how they feel, they really do think that money is the only thing that matters, it's like thought is the enemy.
I think the conservative party of today, after going belly up twice, looked for a new name, something that had character, an honest image, and great reputation, after rejecting all the old conservative labels as unsavory, they grabbed onto one of the discarded liberal labels from the Jefferson age, Republican. The one thing the conservatives did not want was a name that reflected their real ideology like, The Corporate Party of America, or Money Talks Big Time Party.
A con once suggested to me that people should get one vote for every thousand in tax they pay sort of lets you know how they feel, they really do think that money is the only thing that matters, it's like thought is the enemy.
voting based on money or political IQ makes far more sense than voting based on a low IQ.
The liberal knows the dumber someone is the more likely he is to vote for welfare entitlements. This is why registering ex cons and ghetto liberals is always a high priority for liberals.
This is nothing less than subversion of our Constitution and democracy.
In 2001 in support of the Bush tax cut Alan Greenspan testified before congress that the greatest economic threat he saw was that the nation would pay its debt off entirely within 10 years and congress would not adjust taxes quickly enough resulting in an accumulation of capital in Washington which would then be inefficiently applied.
As examples of problems developing he pointed to reduced bond auctions which caused a shortage of marketable securities for certain hedge investments.
At the time the total debt was a bit over 5 trillion, now we are over 15 trillion, why did Greenspan get it so wrong?
The most recent projections from OMB and CBO indicate that, if current policies remain in place, the total unified surplus will reach about $800 billion in fiscal year 2010, including an on-budget surplus of almost $500 billion. Moreover, the admittedly quite uncertain long-term budget exercises released by the CBO last October maintain an implicit on-budget surplus under baseline assumptions well past 2030 despite the budgetary pressures from the aging of the baby-boom generation, especially on the major health programs.
These most recent projections, granted their tentativeness, nonetheless make clear that the highly desirable goal of paying off the federal debt is in reach and, indeed, would occur well before the end of the decade under baseline assumptions. This is in marked contrast to the perception of a year ago, when the elimination of the debt did not appear likely until the next decade. But continuing to run surpluses beyond the point at which we reach zero or near-zero federal debt brings to center stage the critical longer-term fiscal policy issue of whether the federal government should accumulate large quantities of private (more technically, nonfederal) assets.
At zero debt, the continuing unified budget surpluses now projected under current law imply a major accumulation of private assets by the federal government. Such an accumulation would make the federal government a significant factor in our nation's capital markets and would risk significant distortion in the allocation of capital to its most productive uses. Such a distortion could be quite costly, as it is our extraordinarily effective allocation process that has enabled such impressive increases in productivity and standards of living despite a relatively low domestic saving rate.
Returning to the broader fiscal picture, I continue to believe, as I have testified previously, that all else being equal, a declining level of federal debt is desirable because it holds down long-term real interest rates, thereby lowering the cost of capital and elevating private investment. The rapid capital deepening that has occurred in the U.S. economy in recent years is a testament to these benefits. But the sequence of upward revisions to the budget surplus projections for several years now has reshaped the choices and opportunities before us.
Indeed, in almost any credible baseline scenario, short of a major and prolonged economic contraction, the full benefits of debt reduction are now achieved well before the end of this decade--a prospect that did not seem reasonable only a year or even six months ago. Thus, the emerging key fiscal policy need is now to address the implications of maintaining surpluses beyond the point at which publicly held debt is effectively eliminated.
Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan
Current fiscal issues
Before the Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of Representatives
March 2, 2001
but there's plenty of evidence for that without calling liberals smart...
Americans are paying historically low tax rates, when we had a balanced budget we slashed taxes and reestablished a debt, if cutting taxes was the right thing to do when Washington was taking in too much money, it follows that a tax increase is what you do when Washington is taking in too little money, to change your plan just because of the direction of the correction is a blatant political pandering move.
Do you know what SS tops out at? about $1800/mo that's a King sized feather bed? Where the hell you buying beds?
Americans are paying historically low tax rates
Really? Was the 28% top rate in 1988 higher than the current top rate of 35%?
That 28% applied to cap gains and dividends so yes it was a higher rate, Romney could not have got his taxes to less than 14% in 1988, there was also a 33% bubble to up the tax on the middle class, only the super rich get the full break, but remember those rates totally busted the budget to the point that the "no new taxes, read my lips" guy did raise taxes, I was referring to the historically normal rate of say 70% to 90% top rate, the sort of rates you apply when going to war and such.
Americans are paying historically low tax rates, when we had a balanced budget we slashed taxes and reestablished a debt, if cutting taxes was the right thing to do when Washington was taking in too much money, it follows that a tax increase is what you do when Washington is taking in too little money, to change your plan just because of the direction of the correction is a blatant political pandering move.
Do you know what SS tops out at? about $1800/mo that's a King sized feather bed? Where the hell you buying beds?
Americans are paying historically low tax rates
Really? Was the 28% top rate in 1988 higher than the current top rate of 35%?
Maybe you could tell me if cutting taxes is what you do when "Washington is taking in too much money" then don't you raise taxes when Washington is taking in too little money? Or is your actual plan just to kill America?
In 2001 in support of the Bush tax cut Alan Greenspan testified before congress that the greatest economic threat he saw was that the nation would pay its debt off entirely within 10 years and congress would not adjust taxes quickly enough resulting in an accumulation of capital in Washington which would then be inefficiently applied.
As examples of problems developing he pointed to reduced bond auctions which caused a shortage of marketable securities for certain hedge investments.
At the time the total debt was a bit over 5 trillion, now we are over 15 trillion, why did Greenspan get it so wrong?
The most recent projections from OMB and CBO indicate that, if current policies remain in place, the total unified surplus will reach about $800 billion in fiscal year 2010, including an on-budget surplus of almost $500 billion. Moreover, the admittedly quite uncertain long-term budget exercises released by the CBO last October maintain an implicit on-budget surplus under baseline assumptions well past 2030 despite the budgetary pressures from the aging of the baby-boom generation, especially on the major health programs.
These most recent projections, granted their tentativeness, nonetheless make clear that the highly desirable goal of paying off the federal debt is in reach and, indeed, would occur well before the end of the decade under baseline assumptions. This is in marked contrast to the perception of a year ago, when the elimination of the debt did not appear likely until the next decade. But continuing to run surpluses beyond the point at which we reach zero or near-zero federal debt brings to center stage the critical longer-term fiscal policy issue of whether the federal government should accumulate large quantities of private (more technically, nonfederal) assets.
At zero debt, the continuing unified budget surpluses now projected under current law imply a major accumulation of private assets by the federal government. Such an accumulation would make the federal government a significant factor in our nation's capital markets and would risk significant distortion in the allocation of capital to its most productive uses. Such a distortion could be quite costly, as it is our extraordinarily effective allocation process that has enabled such impressive increases in productivity and standards of living despite a relatively low domestic saving rate.
Returning to the broader fiscal picture, I continue to believe, as I have testified previously, that all else being equal, a declining level of federal debt is desirable because it holds down long-term real interest rates, thereby lowering the cost of capital and elevating private investment. The rapid capital deepening that has occurred in the U.S. economy in recent years is a testament to these benefits. But the sequence of upward revisions to the budget surplus projections for several years now has reshaped the choices and opportunities before us.
Indeed, in almost any credible baseline scenario, short of a major and prolonged economic contraction, the full benefits of debt reduction are now achieved well before the end of this decade--a prospect that did not seem reasonable only a year or even six months ago. Thus, the emerging key fiscal policy need is now to address the implications of maintaining surpluses beyond the point at which publicly held debt is effectively eliminated.
Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan
Current fiscal issues
Before the Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of Representatives
March 2, 2001
A con once suggested to me that people should get one vote for every thousand in tax they pay sort of lets you know how they feel, they really do think that money is the only thing that matters, it's like thought is the enemy.
voting based on money or political IQ makes far more sense than voting based on a low IQ.
The liberal knows the dumber someone is the more likely he is to vote for welfare entitlements. This is why registering ex cons and ghetto liberals is always a high priority for liberals.
This is nothing less than subversion of our Constitution and democracy.
and yet all those "intellectuals" are liberals funny how that works out, almost makes you think cons are stupid as shit, but there's plenty of evidence for that without calling liberals smart...
voting based on money or political IQ makes far more sense than voting based on a low IQ.
The liberal knows the dumber someone is the more likely he is to vote for welfare entitlements. This is why registering ex cons and ghetto liberals is always a high priority for liberals.
This is nothing less than subversion of our Constitution and democracy.
and yet all those "intellectuals" are liberals funny how that works out, almost makes you think cons are stupid as shit, but there's plenty of evidence for that without calling liberals smart...
and yet all those "intellectuals" are liberals
It's true, many intellectuals who are ignorant of the real world are liberals.
That's worth repeating.Americans are paying historically low tax rates
Really? Was the 28% top rate in 1988 higher than the current top rate of 35%?
Maybe you could tell me if cutting taxes is what you do when "Washington is taking in too much money" then don't you raise taxes when Washington is taking in too little money? Or is your actual plan just to kill America?
then don't you raise taxes when Washington is taking in too little money?
When your income doesn't match your spending, you cut your spending.
You don't raise your spending by huge amounts, year after year.
When your income doesn't match your spending, you cut your spending.
You don't raise your spending by huge amounts, year after year.
