There's Always Money for War

[red states rule]

Or at least watch the spending. It's called balance.

On that we agree. Republicans were really bad, but now Dems have loaded up a spending bill for the troops with over $20 billion of pork

I would like to see the Line Item Veto brought back. Now with two new Justices of the SC it might pass now

 

[wiggles]

Cutting spending doesn't always have to mean cutting programs that help people out of poverty.

 

[red states rule]

Cutting spending doesn't always have to mean cutting programs that help people out of poverty.

We are spending records amount on the welfare handouts.

After 40 years and $9 trillion perhaps Amercia should rethink continuing to pour taxpayer money down this rathole

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Really? When they drive on the street they use more road than someone who earns less money but drives a similar size vehicle? Their children use more public education funding when they go to private schools instead of public ones? They consume more criminal court resources than rapists, child molesters, thieves, carjackers, drug dealers, etc.?

Please provide any empirical data that show that The Rich consumer multiple orders of magnitude more of government services than the average person.

Corporations benefit more than anyone when it comes to wars. Roomy got RSR to at least partly agree to that earlier.

Is there any tax rate that you find Too High?

I don't think you grok the risk to a society when the bulk of the population pay little or no taxes and The Rich pay an enormous concentration. If you think that Government Serves The Rich more than the rest of us - it's only logical to conclude that Those Who Pay For Most Of It Should Expect Most Of The Benefit.

Interesting. So what do you propose? That we lower the taxes on the rich? To what levels?

 

[Dirt McGirt]

He is liberal on taxes - just keep paying, and paying, and paying, and paying

Nope. I said raise taxes exclusively to pay down the deficit. Show me where I said otherwise. My comments are indicative of fiscal responsibility. Yours are indicative of stay the course.

 

[red states rule]

Corporations benefit more than anyone when it comes to wars. Roomy got RSR to at least partly agree to that earlier.



Interesting. So what do you propose? That we lower the taxes on the rich? To what levels?

Where did I say corporations benefit more? They are a very small part of the US economy


Since the "rich" pay a huge majority of the taxes any tax cut will benefit them

Waht is wrong with that?

 

[red states rule]

Nope. I said raise taxes exclusively to pay down the deficit. Show me where I said otherwise. My comments are indicative of fiscal responsibility. Yours are indicative of stay the course.

The more money that flows into DC will be spent - no matter which party is in charge

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Where did I say corporations benefit more? They are a very small part of the US economy


Since the "rich" pay a huge majority of the taxes any tax cut will benefit them

Waht is wrong with that?

What's wrong with that is that if you cut taxes on the rich, you have to increase taxes on the poor to make up the difference.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

The more money that flows into DC will be spent - no matter which party is in charge

Which brings us back to my original comments to CSM.

 

[red states rule]

What's wrong with that is that if you cut taxes on the rich, you have to increase taxes on the poor to make up the difference.

Not when revenues INCREASE when you cut taxes

The "poor" pay very little in taxes now anyway

BTW, at what income does someone become "rich?

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Not when revenues INCREASE when you cut taxes

The "poor" pay very little in taxes now anyway

BTW, at what income does someone become "rich?

Already addressed this here.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=537913&postcount=21

Hit me up when the new talking points come out.

 

[red states rule]

Already addressed this here.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=537913&postcount=21

Hit me up when the new talking points come out.

Not talking points - facts

Why not answer the question? Or is this the liberal two step where you never give a direct answer to a direct question?

 

[wiggles]

He answered it!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=537913&postcount=21

Christ on a cracker, already. If you'd just stop regurgitating defensive talking points and open your mind a stitch...

 

[red states rule]

He answered it!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=537913&postcount=21

Christ on a cracker, already. If you'd just stop regurgitating defensive talking points and open your mind a stitch...

Why can't you answer simple questions? Are you waiting for the talking points?

You keep ducking them and say how the rich has to "pay their fair share" all I want to know is how much do you want them to pay and when does someone become rich

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Why can't you answer simple questions? Are you waiting for the talking points?

You keep ducking them and say how the rich has to "pay their fair share" all I want to know is how much do you want them to pay and when does someone become rich

LMAO. No one's ducked shit. Go back to the beginning and re-read the thread. I think in your quest to post as many irrelevant articles from newsbusters, you might have missed some direct answers to your unrelated questions.

 

[red states rule]

LMAO. No one's ducked shit. Go back to the beginning and re-read the thread. I think in your quest to post as many irrelevant articles from newsbusters, you might have missed some direct answers to your unrelated questions.

No where have you answered the questions

Libs have it in their blood to take as much money as they can from the producers and givre it away to the non producers

Despite the fact, our current economy is growing, tax revenues are increasing, and the deficit is shrinking

Leave it to libs to want to screw it up by robbing people of the money they earn thru increasing wealth transfers

 

[red states rule]

Libs always whine how cutting taxes reduces revenues

Under Pres Bush revenues are at record levels

Under Pres Reagan revenues doubled:

HOW DID THE REAGAN TAX CUTS AFFECT THE U.S. TREASURY?
Many critics of reducing taxes claim that the Reagan tax cuts drained the U.S. Treasury. The reality is that federal revenues increased significantly between 1980 and 1990:

Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue.3

As a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), federal revenues declined only slightly from 18.9 percent in 1980 to 18 percent in 1990.

Revenues from individual income taxes climbed from just over $244 billion in 1980 to nearly $467 billion in 1990.5 In inflation-adjusted dollars, this amounts to a 25 percent increase.

HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT FEDERAL SPENDING?
Although critics continue to focus on President Reagan's budget "cuts," federal spending rose significantly during the 1980s:

Federal spending more than doubled, growing from almost $591 billion in 1980 to $1.25 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was an increase of 35.8 percent.6

As a percentage of GDP, federal expenditures grew slightly from 21.6 percent in 1980 to 21.8 percent in 1990.7

Contrary to popular myth, while inflation-adjusted defense spending increased by 50 percent between 1980 and 1989, it was curtailed when the Cold War ended and fell by 15 percent between 1989 and 1993. However, means-tested entitlements, which do not include Social Security or Medicare, rose by over 102 percent between 1980 and 1993, and they have continued climbing ever since.8

Total spending on all national security programs never equaled domestic spending, even when Social Security, Medicare, and net interest are excluded from domestic totals. In addition, national security spending fell during the Administration of the senior President Bush, while domestic spending increased in both mandatory and discretionary accounts

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1414.cfm

 

[JeffWartman]

If libs want to raise more money, then why raise taxes?

When you raise taxes you generate LESS money

So perhaps you should care

You do realize the Laffer Curve only works to a point and under specific circumstances, right?

If you are stating that "high taxes always lead to less revenue, and lower taxes always lead to more revenue", which you seem to be implying, is flat out wrong.

 

[GeeWhiz]

How did the largest tax cuts given to only the wealthiest members of our society benefit America? The answer is it screwed America.

Bush when he took office saw a negative job growth the only President to have had a record like that in the last 100 years.

Middle class shrunk. This shrinkage didn't mean the members of the middle class moved up in class it meant they dropped into poverty.

Poverty increased see above. Deep poverty increased by 26 percent. What deep poverty means is that those whom already were at the bottom when Bush took office are worse off than they were before he took office.

Millions out of work. The millions that have exhausted their unemployment compensation are no longer counted.

Homelessness increased by 5 times since Bush took office. The amount of beds for the homeless decreased since Bush took office. The homeless are worse off since Bush took office then they were before he took office.

States have been understaffed and underfunded since Bush took office. In my state 26 children have died in one year alone due to an understaffed and underfunded office to care for these children. Children are worse of since Bush took then they were before he took office.

Millions without insurance including children. Health care for Americans is worse since Bush took office than it was before Bush took office.

Only the top ten percent benefitted from Bush'es watch. This is pretty screwed up because the Constitution says, "We the People" it doesn't say, "We the top ten percent" it also doesn't say, "We the business owners".

No jobs were ever created under Bush'es watch. What this means is only low paying or part time jobs without benefits were created. The ladder to climb up was yanked away.

Life under Bush is life in hell for million and millions of Americans.

 

[Annie]

On the original post: Seems to me that the federal government has some important issues to deal with via the constitution:

1. Foreign affairs, including war. The states are barred from this, totally.
2. Our borders: Related to #1, but more than that, it's what make a 'state' viable.
3. Interstate regulations and projects: Roads, trade, air, rail, state disputes on jurisdiction, etc.
4. Enforcing laws that apply to all: Civil rights, fair trade, etc.

That's about it.

However, they are involved in so much more. So yes, there should always be $$$ for war, not so on implementing kindergarten programs for "Heather Has Two Mommies"...