Cantor pulls out of Biden debt talks

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Soooo, everything is on the table except rolling back the rich man's tax cuts? I love the way Canyousee me? Cantor plays the political game.

Uh. Moron. The Bush Tax Cuts applied to everyone. The amount for the Very Rich who make more than $200K per year is approximately 25% of the total "cost" (which is bogus as it's completely fictitious that tax cuts cost the government). 75% of the tax cuts went to those who are solidly middle class or lower.

the rich got a ~1% tax cut
I got a ~3% tax cut
the poor got a 100% tax cut.

How is rolling back the bush tax cuts "raising taxes on the rich" more than it is raising taxes on the middle class and poor?

 

[saveliberty]

<keys being pushed madly>

<enter>

Now just what does the party line say about this?

PP is right, the tax cuts were percentage-wise, BIGGER for the middle class and made the poor's governemnt check larger.

 

[Gadawg73]

Soooo, everything is on the table except rolling back the rich man's tax cuts? I love the way Canyousee me? Cantor plays the political game.

Uh. Moron. The Bush Tax Cuts applied to everyone. The amount for the Very Rich who make more than $200K per year is approximately 25% of the total "cost" (which is bogus as it's completely fictitious that tax cuts cost the government). 75% of the tax cuts went to those who are solidly middle class or lower.

the rich got a ~1% tax cut
I got a ~3% tax cut
the poor got a 100% tax cut.

How is rolling back the bush tax cuts "raising taxes on the rich" more than it is raising taxes on the middle class and poor?

They are in a higher tax bracket and pay a higher %.
Which is absurd practice. When they get their cigarretes and beer they pay the same tax as anyone else. Why should those that work hard and produce have to pay more % in taxes?
Raising taxes in a recession is about as stupid as it gets. Taking $$ out of those that have the ability to consume and send it to WAshington is the worst thing to do in economic distress.
SPENDING is the problem.

 

[saveliberty]

Realisitically, we need major spending cuts AND more taxes.

 

[Gadawg73]

Realisitically, we need major spending cuts AND more taxes.

When will you notice that when you give politicians $$$ THEY ALWAYS SPEND ALL OF IT?
When will that fact hit you?
No matter how much you give them they always want more.
QUIT GIVING THEM $$$

 

[Gadawg73]

Realisitically, we need major spending cuts AND more taxes.

There is a line on your tax form where you can send in more than you owe.
Have at it.

 

[saveliberty]

Realisitically, we need major spending cuts AND more taxes.

There is a line on your tax form where you can send in more than you owe.
Have at it.

I have taken small tax refund checks and decided not to cash them. Unfortunately government has run the debt up so high, more money will be required to pay it off. You seem to ignore the first part of my formula and the word and.

 

[Gadawg73]

Realisitically, we need major spending cuts AND more taxes.

There is a line on your tax form where you can send in more than you owe.
Have at it.

I have taken small tax refund checks and decided not to cash them. Unfortunately government has run the debt up so high, more money will be required to pay it off. You seem to ignore the first part of my formula and the word and.

No, I respect your posts. Good debater.

 

[Steelplate]

Poor thing.. I've already provided the links and facts.. we're all waiting for you to show your own Meathead. LOL

Oh, yeah.... the FOX News thing.... Sorry, that don't cut it with me. The truth is, you damned well know that abortions aren't being paid for with taxpayer money. So you choose to play dumb and scream "Fire in a movie theater" repeatedly in the hopes that more and more people will jump on your bandwagon. It's rumor spreading at it's finest... You figure that if people hear it enough times, they'll think it's true... the actual truth doesn't matter.

I went to factcheck.org and looked at it. It wasn't good enough for you. Too fuckin' bad.... however, that is what factcheck.org's mission is... to separate truth from lies, and as usual... you wingnuts are on the wrong side of the truth/lie equation.

The smoking gun was Pennsylvania working on specific legislation to insure Obama can't fund abortions in their state. You all but conceded Planned Parenthood got everything paid for except the actual abortion procedure. Even contradicted yourself on what your tax dollars pay for. Let me hear you don't want Obama or your state pay for abortions.

That was the "smoking gun"? Good god... I live in PA. It was paranoia from you "I don't trust anyone" that doesn't think(or look) like me" people.

No.... I don't want the government to pay for abortions... but unlike you... I'd like to see the tools that help young single mothers and poor families stay intact.

Finally.... Family Planning receives 1/3 of their money from the Fed. that's 33%. Abortions only make up 3% of their operating expenses. Only the paranoid would sit there and claim that those abortions are coming out of the 33%.. Why would they do it... Just to say "**** you" to the anti-abortionists? Ridiculous.

 

[Wiseacre]

It's a spending problem.

Remember when Reagan agreed to raise taxes if the Dems would agree to cut spending? He did, but they didn't, the Dems want what they want whether the gov't has the money or not. It's like an addict on crack, they spend and they spend and they spend until somebody makes them stop. Well, it's about time to say stop. If not now, when?

It's a spending problem. In case you forgot already. From what I hear, they've already agreed to some cuts, now it's about including tax increases of one nature or another. Which the GOP will not do, and for good reason. If the economy turns around and in 2-3 years things are rolling, then you might start raising taxes a little. But not now, in the middle of a recession. Which it is no matter what they say.

One more time, it's a spending problem.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is so easy to say we need to cut spending AND raise taxes to eliminate the deficit. That sounds so reasonable and makes so much sense. . . .

unless. . . .

You are honest enough to look at the behavior of Congress and the Executive Office over the last 60 years.

The more money they have to spend, the more they have seen that as license to take on new programs, projects, and 'needy groups' and increase spending on those they are already funding. They have not ever seen the people's money as something that should be returned to the treasury to pay down the debt or save for a rainy day. The ONLY reason we almost had a surplus for a couple of years of the Clinton administration is because the economy was booming and generating more in taxes than what they could spend. And the reason it was booming was in part due to the tax cuts in 1997.

We do not want to give Congress or the President, no matter who he or she is, more money to spend. The only way we are going to get this under control is to start reducing the amount Congress and the President have to spend and are allowed to spend and use it ourselves where it will generate economic growth.

 

[The T]

It's a spending problem.

Remember when Reagan agreed to raise taxes if the Dems would agree to cut spending? He did, but they didn't, the Dems want what they want whether the gov't has the money or not. It's like an addict on crack, they spend and they spend and they spend until somebody makes them stop. Well, it's about time to say stop. If not now, when?

It's a spending problem. In case you forgot already. From what I hear, they've already agreed to some cuts, now it's about including tax increases of one nature or another. Which the GOP will not do, and for good reason. If the economy turns around and in 2-3 years things are rolling, then you might start raising taxes a little. But not now, in the middle of a recession. Which it is no matter what they say.

One more time, it's a spending problem.

And with their spending they get others addicted to it, and voting themselves into the Treasury, and it's used as a weapon by the Statists.

 

[Wiseacre]

It is so easy to say we need to cut spending AND raise taxes to eliminate the deficit. That sounds so reasonable and makes so much sense. . . .

unless. . . .

You are honest enough to look at the behavior of Congress and the Executive Office over the last 60 years.

The more money they have to spend, the more they have seen that as license to take on new programs, projects, and 'needy groups' and increase spending on those they are already funding. They have not ever seen the people's money as something that should be returned to the treasury to pay down the debt or save for a rainy day. The ONLY reason we almost had a surplus for a couple of years of the Clinton administration is because the economy was booming and generating more in taxes than what they could spend. And the reason it was booming was in part due to the tax cuts in 1997.

We do not want to give Congress or the President, no matter who he or she is, more money to spend. The only way we are going to get this under control is to start reducing the amount Congress and the President have to spend and are allowed to spend and use it ourselves where it will generate economic growth.

The GOP held Congress during the late 90s wouldn't let Clinton spend like he wanted to. AND they passed the legislation that completely changed our welfare state.

 

[The T]

It is so easy to say we need to cut spending AND raise taxes to eliminate the deficit. That sounds so reasonable and makes so much sense. . . .

unless. . . .

You are honest enough to look at the behavior of Congress and the Executive Office over the last 60 years.

The more money they have to spend, the more they have seen that as license to take on new programs, projects, and 'needy groups' and increase spending on those they are already funding. They have not ever seen the people's money as something that should be returned to the treasury to pay down the debt or save for a rainy day. The ONLY reason we almost had a surplus for a couple of years of the Clinton administration is because the economy was booming and generating more in taxes than what they could spend. And the reason it was booming was in part due to the tax cuts in 1997.

We do not want to give Congress or the President, no matter who he or she is, more money to spend. The only way we are going to get this under control is to start reducing the amount Congress and the President have to spend and are allowed to spend and use it ourselves where it will generate economic growth.

The GOP held Congress during the late 90s wouldn't let Clinton spend like he wanted to. AND they passed the legislation that completely changed our welfare state.

And they dragged Clinton along kicking and screaming to boot.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is so easy to say we need to cut spending AND raise taxes to eliminate the deficit. That sounds so reasonable and makes so much sense. . . .

unless. . . .

You are honest enough to look at the behavior of Congress and the Executive Office over the last 60 years.

The more money they have to spend, the more they have seen that as license to take on new programs, projects, and 'needy groups' and increase spending on those they are already funding. They have not ever seen the people's money as something that should be returned to the treasury to pay down the debt or save for a rainy day. The ONLY reason we almost had a surplus for a couple of years of the Clinton administration is because the economy was booming and generating more in taxes than what they could spend. And the reason it was booming was in part due to the tax cuts in 1997.

We do not want to give Congress or the President, no matter who he or she is, more money to spend. The only way we are going to get this under control is to start reducing the amount Congress and the President have to spend and are allowed to spend and use it ourselves where it will generate economic growth.

The GOP held Congress during the late 90s wouldn't let Clinton spend like he wanted to. AND they passed the legislation that completely changed our welfare state.

Yes they did. But nevertheless the budget and the debt continued to increase under their watch just the same, just at a slower rate than we see with Democrat in charge. The GOP is my party of choice because it takes away our freedoms, chioices, options, opportunities, and money more slowly than do the Democrats, but neither can resist spending money they have to spend or passing legislation that will cost us even more money on down the road.

We have to put Congress and the Executive Branch on a strict diet no matter who is in charge. We'll have a better chance to do that with Republicans in charge I think but even conservatives can be squishy on doing what has to be done.

I put my "How to fix government . . ." thread out there for evidence.

 

[Wiseacre]

Squishy she says. Okay, no doubt both sides got us into this mess, but the repubs seem to have gotten religion on the matter of spending cuts. We'll see. It may be that if the Dems get solidly trounced again in 2012 and lose both the Senate and the WH that they may be singing a different tune too. Maybe, maybe not, but I think we're running out of time, not just with the debt ceiling but our entire fiscal situation.

 

[The T]

Squishy she says. Okay, no doubt both sides got us into this mess, but the repubs seem to have gotten religion on the matter of spending cuts. We'll see. It may be that if the Dems get solidly trounced again in 2012 and lose both the Senate and the WH that they may be singing a different tune too. Maybe, maybe not, but I think we're running out of time, not just with the debt ceiling but our entire fiscal situation.

Where it is going to count is pressure from the people to keep the Repubs on the straight and narrow...and those people would be Conservatives, and those in the TEA Party accepting nothing less.

Republicans as a party have been on probation, and their record since November has been shakey, and less-than-stellar. There is NO room for compromise this time. WE as a nation are on the preface of a cliff teetering on Depression if something drastic [Statist parlence DRACONIAN], isn't done.

The Onus is on the House right NOW. I can't belive people are telling me "wait until 2012". No. Wrong answer. It has to come NOW.

 

[The T]

To further? I'm going to tell you that the Statists, Obama are going to try to drag this out as long as they can so when it does go they have AMMO to precisely blame the Republicans for stalling. They're already gearing up for it.

 

[Greenbeard]

The GOP held Congress during the late 90s wouldn't let Clinton spend like he wanted to. AND they passed the legislation that completely changed our welfare state.

Reality check: of the three major deficit-reducing budgets passed in the 1990s (all passed via the budget reconciliation process), two of them--the larger two, in fact--were passed by Democratic Congresses.

 

[The T]

Now is not the time to go wobbly, but rather go for the proverbial jugular of the Statists, and Obama. Make them defend their blocking of what needs to be done to save this Republic.