Which is better?

[Avatar4321]

Avatar's beef is with the defense contractors and their cozy relationship w/ many of the pols right Avatar? Because, as many know, social services for the poor make up a pittance of the budget.

1) that pittance is trillions of dollars. And most of it is used to create a dependent group of people who cant help themselves. Not to mention its unconstitutional at the federal level anyway.

2) Im all for cutting defense in strategic areas and putting more areas in sound fiscal restraints. There really isnt a reason we couldnt keep the same level military or even increase it while cutting down on the waste.

 

[drsmith1072]

So you see no correlation between skyrocketing debt and skyrocketing spending? That's coincidence?

(and btw, Obama's tax policy is the same as Bush's)

care to show when and where I SAID there was no correlation? Oh you mena I didn't and in order to try and make a cheap point you try to put words into my mouth and attack me for a postion I never had.

I see it as an all of the above problem I even meantioned decreased spending in my previous post but that FACT is not important to you when you are trying to define someone based on your misguided preconcieved notions.

and BTW the extention of W's tax cuts by obama doesn't change the fact that tax rates are at their lowest and the problem still exists.

Oh and republicans are part of teh spending problem too. I citied a link ewarlier but it's funny how none of the conservatives wished to address how the republcians controlled house increased obama defense budget by $3 billion. lol

no comment on this either

BTW if cutting income taxes is the answer then why do republcians constantly argue that we need to "broaden the tax base" and increase income taxes on the roughly 40% who don't pay income taxes because they are too poor to do so?

I'm not a republican, I hate that party equally as much as I hate the party you love.

But you're starting to sound less partisan, so kudos on that.

Both parties have a HUGE problem with spending, and the strategy of re-electing all of them to fix the problem they created we've proven hasn't worked.

Yes both parties do have a problem and they both have their pipers to pay but I dont' see how increasing taxes on the poor (broadening the tax base) while cutting taxes for the wealthy will help things.

trickle down economics has been tried and the one supposed toi be trickling it down tend to keep it for themselves. The current situation is evident of that. All of these "job creators" sitting on all of the money or giving it to political campaigns instead of creating jobs under the guise that there is so much uncertainty.

Well, there is no certainty in business. If success was guranteed then no one would want to work for anyone else when they could have a successful business. That mis a poor excuses for inaction.

However, yes cutting their taxes will give the "rish" even more disposeable inome to spend but if they are sitting on it now how will giving them even more do anything but make their "seat" a little more comfortable?

 

[Avatar4321]

Im all for tax cuts to raise revenues and spending cuts to cut costs.

LOL if only it were that easy. LOL

So based on how you tried to compare this to an individual, do you believe that if you take a pay cut you will bring in more income?

Nope. But then tax cuts arent pay cuts. It's more equivalent to lowering the price for a product and recieving more revenues in sales because you significantly increase the price of sales.

I want the people of the United States to work less for the government and more for themselves. That means cutting taxes and spending. With our current technology, we would be in place for an economic boom that would rival the last time we did it.

 

[Avatar4321]

Constantly spending more than we take in with no thought of ever balancing our budget?

Or

Limiting our spending to our revenues and living within our means?

Which of these two should be our policy as a individuals and as a nation?

Gee that poll isn't skewed a la Rasmussen at all, is it?

LOL

Not my fault that those who want to spend more money dont answer it.

 

[Avatar4321]

uh you do realize that comparing the individual to the government is a rightwing tactic don't you? LOL

If you have a problem with the tactic talk to them.

You do realize that governments are not any more immune to the laws of fiscal responsibility than individuals right?

 

[Clementine]

Im all for tax cuts to raise revenues and spending cuts to cut costs.

LOL if only it were that easy. LOL

So based on how you tried to compare this to an individual, do you believe that if you take a pay cut you will bring in more income?

As if the federal government does not earn other taxation revenues when things are bought with monies from earnings that people have more of as a result on lesser income taxation

Cutting income tax can and does raise more federal revenue

And more spending in the private sector means more jobs and more tax payers.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Even people who live off welfare don't live within their means. They take and take and have more kids and get fatter and we just keep giving them OUR money because if we don't WE get put in jail.

How can you even begin to fix a system that treats people so unfairly?

If we really wanted to fix "welfare", we would start with corporate welfare. If you look at the amount stolen from us by corporations compared to welfare moms struggling to get by - there's no comparison and we all know it.

As for the op and poll, those are not the choices being offered to us.

 

[hortysir]

Avatar's beef is with the defense contractors and their cozy relationship w/ many of the pols right Avatar? Because, as many know, social services for the poor make up a pittance of the budget.

Im all for tax cuts to raise revenues and spending cuts to cut costs.

LOL. And the moon is made of green cheese!

#1. Limit our military budget to no more than is spent by the next seven nations combined.

#2. Return to the tax structure under Clinton, with an increase of 5% for those making over $1,000,000.

#3. Cut all government subsidies to businesses making a profit.

care to show when and where I SAID there was no correlation? Oh you mena I didn't and in order to try and make a cheap point you try to put words into my mouth and attack me for a postion I never had.

I see it as an all of the above problem I even meantioned decreased spending in my previous post but that FACT is not important to you when you are trying to define someone based on your misguided preconcieved notions.

and BTW the extention of W's tax cuts by obama doesn't change the fact that tax rates are at their lowest and the problem still exists.

Oh and republicans are part of teh spending problem too. I citied a link ewarlier but it's funny how none of the conservatives wished to address how the republcians controlled house increased obama defense budget by $3 billion. lol

no comment on this either

BTW if cutting income taxes is the answer then why do republcians constantly argue that we need to "broaden the tax base" and increase income taxes on the roughly 40% who don't pay income taxes because they are too poor to do so?

Fuck each and every one of you assholes!

You don't get to use the word "budget" unless and until you actually FUCKING PASS ONE!!

 

[gallantwarrior]

Avatar's beef is with the defense contractors and their cozy relationship w/ many of the pols right Avatar? Because, as many know, social services for the poor make up a pittance of the budget.

1) that pittance is trillions of dollars. And most of it is used to create a dependent group of people who cant help themselves. Not to mention its unconstitutional at the federal level anyway.

2) Im all for cutting defense in strategic areas and putting more areas in sound fiscal restraints. There really isnt a reason we couldnt keep the same level military or even increase it while cutting down on the waste.

There are some who are making well-considered cuts to defense spending. Here's a (nicely spun) article about soldiers once again manning entry points to Fort Hood, TX. Of course,the spin makes it sound really nice, but the truth is, here is one post commander who has decided that as some of these civilian contracts expire, they will not be renewed. Soldiers will once again take over duties that were traditionally carried out by the military. BTW, there are additional civilian contracts not being renewed on Ft Hood. Expect to see more soldiers out cutting grass and raking leaves, too.

 

[Dr.Drock]

care to show when and where I SAID there was no correlation? Oh you mena I didn't and in order to try and make a cheap point you try to put words into my mouth and attack me for a postion I never had.

I see it as an all of the above problem I even meantioned decreased spending in my previous post but that FACT is not important to you when you are trying to define someone based on your misguided preconcieved notions.

and BTW the extention of W's tax cuts by obama doesn't change the fact that tax rates are at their lowest and the problem still exists.

Oh and republicans are part of teh spending problem too. I citied a link ewarlier but it's funny how none of the conservatives wished to address how the republcians controlled house increased obama defense budget by $3 billion. lol

no comment on this either

BTW if cutting income taxes is the answer then why do republcians constantly argue that we need to "broaden the tax base" and increase income taxes on the roughly 40% who don't pay income taxes because they are too poor to do so?

I'm not a republican, I hate that party equally as much as I hate the party you love.

But you're starting to sound less partisan, so kudos on that.

Both parties have a HUGE problem with spending, and the strategy of re-electing all of them to fix the problem they created we've proven hasn't worked.

Yes both parties do have a problem and they both have their pipers to pay but I dont' see how increasing taxes on the poor (broadening the tax base) while cutting taxes for the wealthy will help things.

trickle down economics has been tried and the one supposed toi be trickling it down tend to keep it for themselves. The current situation is evident of that. All of these "job creators" sitting on all of the money or giving it to political campaigns instead of creating jobs under the guise that there is so much uncertainty.

Well, there is no certainty in business. If success was guranteed then no one would want to work for anyone else when they could have a successful business. That mis a poor excuses for inaction.

However, yes cutting their taxes will give the "rish" even more disposeable inome to spend but if they are sitting on it now how will giving them even more do anything but make their "seat" a little more comfortable?

I'm still not understanding why raising taxes and taking money out of the private sector is how you fix the economy.

The biggest problem is spending, but none of us care about spending as long as our party is doing it so they have no incentive to fix that problem.

First we have to fix the out of control spending problem, then after that we need to fix our out of control taxing problem.

Will either ever happen? Maybe the day I grow wings.

 

[drsmith1072]

Im all for tax cuts to raise revenues and spending cuts to cut costs.

LOL if only it were that easy. LOL

So based on how you tried to compare this to an individual, do you believe that if you take a pay cut you will bring in more income?

Nope. But then tax cuts arent pay cuts. It's more equivalent to lowering the price for a product and recieving more revenues in sales because you significantly increase the price of sales.

I want the people of the United States to work less for the government and more for themselves. That means cutting taxes and spending. With our current technology, we would be in place for an economic boom that would rival the last time we did it.

OK your argument does not make any sense. Are you trying to argue that you will increase income by increasing the number of sales based on a lower cost for the product?

How can you increase the "price of sales" when you cut the "price for a product" in your words? There is a chance in he aspect of the individual that more product will be sold at a lower price thereby increaing income but what product does the government sell that would fit this model?

How does that model fit in the government side of your individual/government comparison? What product can the government increase sales of by lower the price of said product?

This is one of the main reasons why the government to individual comparison is not valid. Taxes are the primary method of how the government brings in revenues and selling a product is the primary method of how an individual who owns his own business brings in revenues where as the employees salary is how he brings in revenue. Therefore for the employee taking a pay cut is equivalent to decreasing the revenues brought to the government

 

[drsmith1072]

uh you do realize that comparing the individual to the government is a rightwing tactic don't you? LOL

If you have a problem with the tactic talk to them.

You do realize that governments are not any more immune to the laws of fiscal responsibility than individuals right?

Did I say they were? nope but thanks for the unwarranted opinions. However you additions does not change the fact that a rightwinger was attacking me for a tactic that you were using and yet I don't think he said anything to you about it. LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

LOL if only it were that easy. LOL

So based on how you tried to compare this to an individual, do you believe that if you take a pay cut you will bring in more income?

As if the federal government does not earn other taxation revenues when things are bought with monies from earnings that people have more of as a result on lesser income taxation

Cutting income tax can and does raise more federal revenue

And more spending in the private sector means more jobs and more tax payers.

the problem with that is that they have to spend more in order for that scenario to work and since they are sitting on it right now what makes you think giving them more will make the want to spend more when they refuse to spend now?

 

[drsmith1072]

Avatar's beef is with the defense contractors and their cozy relationship w/ many of the pols right Avatar? Because, as many know, social services for the poor make up a pittance of the budget.

LOL. And the moon is made of green cheese!

#1. Limit our military budget to no more than is spent by the next seven nations combined.

#2. Return to the tax structure under Clinton, with an increase of 5% for those making over $1,000,000.

#3. Cut all government subsidies to businesses making a profit.

care to show when and where I SAID there was no correlation? Oh you mena I didn't and in order to try and make a cheap point you try to put words into my mouth and attack me for a postion I never had.

I see it as an all of the above problem I even meantioned decreased spending in my previous post but that FACT is not important to you when you are trying to define someone based on your misguided preconcieved notions.

and BTW the extention of W's tax cuts by obama doesn't change the fact that tax rates are at their lowest and the problem still exists.

Oh and republicans are part of teh spending problem too. I citied a link ewarlier but it's funny how none of the conservatives wished to address how the republcians controlled house increased obama defense budget by $3 billion. lol

no comment on this either

BTW if cutting income taxes is the answer then why do republcians constantly argue that we need to "broaden the tax base" and increase income taxes on the roughly 40% who don't pay income taxes because they are too poor to do so?

Fuck each and every one of you assholes!

You don't get to use the word "budget" unless and until you actually FUCKING PASS ONE!!

typical avoidance and I expecting nothing more from some of you. However, how does that address or change the FACT that republcains in the house are part of the problem seeing as how they are increaing spending over what obama wanted for the defense budget by $3 billion? It doesn't but thanks for playing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Im all for tax cuts to raise revenues and spending cuts to cut costs.

That's fascinating, since tax cuts decrease revenues.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No spending increases without tax increases to pay for them.

No tax cuts without spending cuts to pay for them.

Problem solved.

 

[Dr.Drock]

No spending increases without tax increases to pay for them.

No tax cuts without spending cuts to pay for them.

Problem solved.

Eventually we could get to that, but for now we have to work on our huge debt and deficit problem.

So even with no action taken on taxes, huge spending cuts are (and have been for awhile) necessary.

 

[SniperFire]

#2. Return to the tax structure under Clinton, with an increase of 5% for those making over $1,000,000.

Stupid Liberals.

'During the eight years of the Clinton Administration the Federal government collected a total of $5.66 trillion dollars in individual income taxes.

During the eight years of the Bush Administration the Federal government collected approximately $7.45 trillion dollars in individual income taxes.

The rich - that is, the top 1% of taxpayers - not only forked over a trillion dollars more to Uncle Sam under Bush than under Clinton, their share of the income tax burden increased from 33% to 38%.'

RealClearMarkets - The Hidden Truth About the Bush Tax Increases

 

[drsmith1072]

I'm not a republican, I hate that party equally as much as I hate the party you love.

But you're starting to sound less partisan, so kudos on that.

Both parties have a HUGE problem with spending, and the strategy of re-electing all of them to fix the problem they created we've proven hasn't worked.

Yes both parties do have a problem and they both have their pipers to pay but I dont' see how increasing taxes on the poor (broadening the tax base) while cutting taxes for the wealthy will help things.

trickle down economics has been tried and the one supposed toi be trickling it down tend to keep it for themselves. The current situation is evident of that. All of these "job creators" sitting on all of the money or giving it to political campaigns instead of creating jobs under the guise that there is so much uncertainty.

Well, there is no certainty in business. If success was guranteed then no one would want to work for anyone else when they could have a successful business. That mis a poor excuses for inaction.

However, yes cutting their taxes will give the "rish" even more disposeable inome to spend but if they are sitting on it now how will giving them even more do anything but make their "seat" a little more comfortable?

I'm still not understanding why raising taxes and taking money out of the private sector is how you fix the economy.

The biggest problem is spending, but none of us care about spending as long as our party is doing it so they have no incentive to fix that problem.

First we have to fix the out of control spending problem, then after that we need to fix our out of control taxing problem.

Will either ever happen? Maybe the day I grow wings.

Did I say that raising taxes and taking money out of the provate sector will fix the economy? NO.

And i know the argument that even if we take everything to top 1% has it still won't fix the problem instantly but that is a phony argument because no one is talking about fixing the economy in one single step. Even the republcians budget won't balance the budgetr until around 2040 so why beleive that obama wants to or can do it in one step?
However, I do beleive that raising revenues and decreasing spending, which is not out of control, are both PART of the solution.

Again, tax rates are at an alltime low on the federal level so there is not out of control taxing problem. If your state and local taxes are "out of control" then you need to do something about that at a local level.

 

[drsmith1072]

No spending increases without tax increases to pay for them.

No tax cuts without spending cuts to pay for them.

Problem solved.

Eventually we could get to that, but for now we have to work on our huge debt and deficit problem.

So even with no action taken on taxes, huge spending cuts are (and have been for awhile) necessary.

So even with no action on spending cuts, huge increases in revenue by taxation are (and have been for a while) necessary.

wouldn't it be better to do both at the same time?

If two people trying to meet would it be faster and better for one to stand still and wait for the other to arrive or would it be faster and better if both were moving and met in the middle?

Both moving would appear to be the obvious choice.