Only 5 percent of O voters want tax hikes without spending cuts.

[Freemason9]

FYI, the idea of restoring historic progressivity in the tax code isn't totally (or even primarily) based upon the premise of deficit reduction. It would be a step (albeit a tiny one) towards reducing the horrendous concentrations of wealth that are destroying U.S. productivity and economic health.

In the absense of labor unions or meaningful labor law protections, the tax code is about all we have to work with.

 

[Freemason9]

You gotta remember KG - Obama supporters will buy whatever he tells them.
He tells them his offer includes $400bn in cuts...they believe it. Even though I honestly doubt there is a single time in the past 50 years (at least) where unspecified cuts announced ever actually happened. Not once, and would not this time either.
To think that this Presidents offer to address serious deficit spending - is an increase in spending - and it doesnt even faze his supporters or the media.
Nuts.

So, YOU tell me . . . what does the GOP plan to cut, specifically? And what "regulations" does the GOP plan to eliminate, specifically? I'm honestly curious.

 

[koshergrl]

This is why we don't want to propose cuts, and instead want you to suggest what you want to cut.

Unless we propose cuts you approve (i.e., military/medicare) then you reject it out of hand.

 

[koshergrl]

I assume you're an idiot.

Do you have to alienate everyone that asks you a question? If you don't know the answer or don't have an opinion, can't you just say so? Why do you feel the need to be an outright asshole?

Is KosherGirl a troll? I've noticed that he/she often does a "drive by" original post, but then cannot respond to rebuttals.

I don't waste a lot of brain power on brain dead dolts, it's true. Your posts don't have the substance to move me to spend a lot of time picking them apart. They sort of self detonate, so pointing and laughing is sufficient.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

You gotta remember KG - Obama supporters will buy whatever he tells them.
He tells them his offer includes $400bn in cuts...they believe it. Even though I honestly doubt there is a single time in the past 50 years (at least) where unspecified cuts announced ever actually happened. Not once, and would not this time either.
To think that this Presidents offer to address serious deficit spending - is an increase in spending - and it doesnt even faze his supporters or the media.
Nuts.

So, YOU tell me . . . what does the GOP plan to cut, specifically? And what "regulations" does the GOP plan to eliminate, specifically? I'm honestly curious.

Then I suggest you read it, or read about it rather than to ask me.
And you dodged my point.

 

[RDD_1210]

The lack of balance in the approach is disturbing...especially when we know that the proposed hikes will amount to only 80 billion a year in revenue while our annual deficit is in the 1.2 trillion dollar range.

Look...tax hikes are a must...we have no choice....but that doesnt mean we should write laws that are solely directed to one class of people.

Romneys approiach is the right approach.....cap deductions. It will apply to ALL Americans....but only those that deduct more than say 60K (arbitrary number) will be affected. And if you deduct more than 60K...you are wealthy.

I dont get it where people think it is American to write laws that specify only one group of people.

What would the outrage be if a law was passed....no....JUST SUGGESTED...saying that anyone over 300 pounds is not allowed to fly becuase it is dagerous to the rest of the passengers...

Why is no one addressing the idea that a law, for the first time, will be passed that SPECIFIES a class of people?

What law is being written that specifies a specific group of people? I see proposals that are aimed at income levels but thats nothing new. We've had a progressive tax system for quite some time obviously.

the White House refers to it as "the wealthiest Americans.
Statistically, it is the top 2 percent
Dollar wise..it is those Americans earning 250K.

Now...if they want to change the tax code...and part of it is changing the tax rate for those earning above 250K...that is one thing.

But they want legisaltion saying "the Bush tax cuts will become permanent for all except for the welathiest Americans...the top 2%....those making over 250K."

That is writing legislation specifically directed to one class of people.

Let me ask you this...and I support this...if the same revenue can be acheived by writing legislation that caps deduictions at 60K.....what is wrong with that?

Why is the President dead set against that?

I have no problem with that. Has that actually been proposed officially? Has Obama said no to this proposal?

 

[RDD_1210]

I assume you're an idiot.

Do you have to alienate everyone that asks you a question? If you don't know the answer or don't have an opinion, can't you just say so? Why do you feel the need to be an outright asshole?

Is KosherGirl a troll? I've noticed that he/she often does a "drive by" original post, but then cannot respond to rebuttals.

She's a Grade A troll and not even worth your time. To be honest, this site is about 90% trolls and is more comedy than actual political discussion.

 

[jillian]

Go figure.

"Just 5 percent of Obama supporters favor tax increases alone to solve the deficit, half the number who back an approach that relies entirely on spending cuts."

"In comparison to his first term, 47 percent said that they hope he is more moderate in his second four years."

"Remarkably, 43 percent of Obama voters agreed with the statement that “Programs such as welfare and unemployment benefits are making people too dependent on government.”


Poll: President Obama voters split on deficit - POLITICO.com Print View

ok...

is anyone talking about tax hikes without spending cuts?

 

[Claudette]

Hope no one is holding their breath for meaningful spending cuts.

Barry will get his tax increase on the wealthy but I doubt they will cut anything and they sure won't touch entitlements.

They arent' to good at honoring those cutting agreements. Just ask Bush I. Somewhere down the road never materializes.

I guess we'll just head for that cliff. We can all wave as we go over. jThe Americans who voted this guy back in will just have to suck it up along witht he rest of us who didn't vote for the asshole.

 

[Freemason9]

Do you have to alienate everyone that asks you a question? If you don't know the answer or don't have an opinion, can't you just say so? Why do you feel the need to be an outright asshole?

Is KosherGirl a troll? I've noticed that he/she often does a "drive by" original post, but then cannot respond to rebuttals.

I don't waste a lot of brain power on brain dead dolts, it's true. Your posts don't have the substance to move me to spend a lot of time picking them apart. They sort of self detonate, so pointing and laughing is sufficient.

Maybe you should get out more often.

 

[koshergrl]

I get out a lot, which is why I'm good at identifying fanatical ideologue zealots quickly.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

ok...

is anyone talking about tax hikes without spending cuts?

Are you serious?
The President's plan is exactly that. It "calls" for $400bn in unspecified cuts...which absolutely means cuts that will never happen regardless of what party is in power. Unspecified cuts for over 50 years never - ever - happen.
So yes, that is exactly what Obama proposed to address the deficit - spend more. Because the spending increases always happens.

 

[BlindBoo]

Go figure.

"Just 5 percent of Obama supporters favor tax increases alone to solve the deficit, half the number who back an approach that relies entirely on spending cuts."

"In comparison to his first term, 47 percent said that they hope he is more moderate in his second four years."

"Remarkably, 43 percent of Obama voters agreed with the statement that “Programs such as welfare and unemployment benefits are making people too dependent on government.”


Poll: President Obama voters split on deficit - POLITICO.com Print View

ok...

is anyone talking about tax hikes without spending cuts?

Just pseudo-cons pretending.

 

[Jarhead]

What law is being written that specifies a specific group of people? I see proposals that are aimed at income levels but thats nothing new. We've had a progressive tax system for quite some time obviously.

the White House refers to it as "the wealthiest Americans.
Statistically, it is the top 2 percent
Dollar wise..it is those Americans earning 250K.

Now...if they want to change the tax code...and part of it is changing the tax rate for those earning above 250K...that is one thing.

But they want legisaltion saying "the Bush tax cuts will become permanent for all except for the welathiest Americans...the top 2%....those making over 250K."

That is writing legislation specifically directed to one class of people.

Let me ask you this...and I support this...if the same revenue can be acheived by writing legislation that caps deduictions at 60K.....what is wrong with that?

Why is the President dead set against that?

I have no problem with that. Has that actually been proposed officially? Has Obama said no to this proposal?

Yes. It was presented by Boehner with the math showing how it will result in the same revenue...

Obamas response was "he will sign off on nothing short of leting the tax cuts expoire for the wealthiest of Americans."

Sadly...many feel as I do. From a logical standpoint, raise revenue with an adjustment in the tax code...cap deductions at a high number...too high to affect the middle class....and therfore, not compromise the ideological point of view of "writing law for one class of Americans"....In other words...we are OK with taking another 80 Billion from the rich...just leave America the land of opportunity and equality.

Obama, however, refuses to budge....he porefers a law written "for the rich only"...

His refusal, to me, is an intentioonal stab in the heart of conservatives...saying "I dont give a crap about your ideology. I can show I do care about it and have the same outcome...but I prefer making you squirm"...

It is not the right way to lead.

 

[Lovebears65]

Go figure.

"Just 5 percent of Obama supporters favor tax increases alone to solve the deficit, half the number who back an approach that relies entirely on spending cuts."

"In comparison to his first term, 47 percent said that they hope he is more moderate in his second four years."

"Remarkably, 43 percent of Obama voters agreed with the statement that “Programs such as welfare and unemployment benefits are making people too dependent on government.”


Poll: President Obama voters split on deficit - POLITICO.com Print View

I think most of the 5 percent are people on this board lol

 

[iamwhatiseem]

ok...

is anyone talking about tax hikes without spending cuts?

Just pseudo-cons pretending.

Once more your name fits you perfectly.

 

[Jarhead]

Go figure.

"Just 5 percent of Obama supporters favor tax increases alone to solve the deficit, half the number who back an approach that relies entirely on spending cuts."

"In comparison to his first term, 47 percent said that they hope he is more moderate in his second four years."

"Remarkably, 43 percent of Obama voters agreed with the statement that “Programs such as welfare and unemployment benefits are making people too dependent on government.”


Poll: President Obama voters split on deficit - POLITICO.com Print View

ok...

is anyone talking about tax hikes without spending cuts?

Yes Jillian...

Obamas proposal was this...

160 Billion a year in tax hikes (double what he campaigned on)
150 Billion dollar stimulus
Presidential autonomy to allow for a debt ceiling increase
40 billion a year in spending cuts to be addressed down the road at a time the President deems best.

FYI...even with the 160 billion in revenue increase and 40 billion in spending cuts...that is 200 billion...

Our annual deficit is 1.2 trillion...which means HIS proposal will allow for an INCREASE in our debt of 1 trillion a year.....or over 20 trillion when he leaves office.

Thoughts?

 

[Jarhead]

Go figure.

"Just 5 percent of Obama supporters favor tax increases alone to solve the deficit, half the number who back an approach that relies entirely on spending cuts."

"In comparison to his first term, 47 percent said that they hope he is more moderate in his second four years."

"Remarkably, 43 percent of Obama voters agreed with the statement that “Programs such as welfare and unemployment benefits are making people too dependent on government.”


Poll: President Obama voters split on deficit - POLITICO.com Print View

ok...

is anyone talking about tax hikes without spending cuts?

Just pseudo-cons pretending.

Really?

So tell me....what cuts did Gheitner present to thew senate the other day?

 

[RDD_1210]

I get out a lot, which is why I'm good at identifying fanatical ideologue zealots quickly.

See, posts like this make this place comedy gold.

 

[Claudette]

Go figure.

"Just 5 percent of Obama supporters favor tax increases alone to solve the deficit, half the number who back an approach that relies entirely on spending cuts."

"In comparison to his first term, 47 percent said that they hope he is more moderate in his second four years."

"Remarkably, 43 percent of Obama voters agreed with the statement that “Programs such as welfare and unemployment benefits are making people too dependent on government.”


Poll: President Obama voters split on deficit - POLITICO.com Print View

ok...

is anyone talking about tax hikes without spending cuts?

Yes Jillian...

Obamas proposal was this...

160 Billion a year in tax hikes (double what he campaigned on)
150 Billion dollar stimulus
Presidential autonomy to allow for a debt ceiling increase
40 billion a year in spending cuts to be addressed down the road at a time the President deems best.

FYI...even with the 160 billion in revenue increase and 40 billion in spending cuts...that is 200 billion...

Our annual deficit is 1.2 trillion...which means HIS proposal will allow for an INCREASE in our debt of 1 trillion a year.....or over 20 trillion when he leaves office.

Thoughts?

Bingo. Just the facts. Of course no Barry supporter will believe you. They think he has the countries best interests at heart. Sure he does. Its all about fairness. Those that have should share with those that don't and bear the burden of paying the taxes. Its the progressive way.

Of course he will never find a time where he "deems" those spending cuts should be made so I sure won't be holding my breath for those to happen. You shouldn't either.