Please Post Reasons Why You Want Obama to Raise Taxes Here. Thanks!

[edthecynic]

Wasn't it Bin Laden who declared war on the US while William Jethro was in office?

No, 9/11 Reagan's freedom fighter OBL said he wanted to kill Americans as much as Russians back when St Ronnie was arming him with Stinger missiles making him a leader among terrorists.

Orange County News, Events, Restaurants, Music

As a speechwriter and special assistant to the president, Rohrabacher played a key role in getting U.S. support for the Afghan rebels, then at war with the Soviet Union. And Rohrabacher’s role was no secret. "We should remember the many Americans who helped the Afghan mujahideen reclaim their country," stated an April 19, 1992, Orange County Register editorial. "One was Dana Rohrabacher, now an Orange County congressman. As a Reagan speechwriter, he became a point man for Afghan policy, actually facilitating the delivery of [Stinger] missiles to the freedom fighters."

In a brief interview with the Weekly, Rohrabacher described his role during those heady days a little differently than the Register. "There was a coalition inside the Reagan administration," said Rohrabacher. "Its goal was to see to it that we were supporting those people opposing communist domination around the world. I was certainly a major player in that."

It was called the Reagan Doctrine. In the eyes of Reagan officials bent on rolling back the Reds everywhere, Afghanistan exemplified the phrase "communist domination." By the time the Russians pulled out of Afghanistan in 1989, the U.S government had lavished $3 billion in arms on the rebels, who, during the bloodiest days of the war, were downing an average of one Russian helicopter gunship per day....

... the majority of U.S. military-aid recipients were unsavory, even unstable characters. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which coordinated the efforts on the ground in Afghanistan, was never very choosy about who got arms.

Roughly half the weapons the CIA supplied went to fundamentalist Afghan leader Gulbeddin Hekmatyar—"one of the most stridently anti-Western of the resistance leaders," according to Mary Ann Weaver’s May 1996 article in The Atlantic Monthly. Another arms customer was the blind Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman, later convicted of involvement in the 1993 botched bombing of the World Trade Center. Oh, and Osama bin Laden, the man whom George W. Bush says was behind the Sept. 11 attacks.

That fact bothers Rohrabacher considerably, and he tries to brush it off. "Bin Laden’s people were funded by the Saudis themselves," he told the Weekly.

But he's wrong. During the Afghan war, the Saudis were, as they are today, doing America’s bidding on the world stage. The CIA-at the behest of a White House, Congress and American media completely united in helping the Afghan rebels-was calling the shots. It is a fact Rohrabacher himself has acknowledged in the recent past.

"I witnessed this in the White House when U.S. officials in charge of the military aid program to the mujahideen permitted a large percentage of our assistance to be channeled to the most anti-Western, nondemocratic elements of the mujahideen," said Rohrabacher in an April 14, 1999, official statement on U.S. policy toward Afghanistan.

Rohrabacher saw firsthand evidence to support his claim. In November 1988, having just been elected to Congress, Rohrabacher took off on his first trip to Afghanistan. The anti-Soviet war was still raging as Rohrabacher set off on a five-day hike with an armed mujahideen patrol from Pakistan into eastern Afghanistan.

"We at one point in that march came across a camp of tents," Rohrabacher said of his visit to Jalalabad, then under siege by the Afghan rebels. "I was told at that point I must not speak English for at least another three hours because the people in those tents were Saudi Arabians under a crazy commander named bin Laden and that bin Laden was so crazy that he wanted to kill Americans as much as he wanted to kill Russians."

 

[NYcarbineer]

Please help us Conservatives understand this. Thanks.

Because tax increases worked for 9/11 Reagan.

When St Ronnie cut taxes unemployment skyrocketed from 7.6% to 10.8% and revenue fell. When unemployment hit double digits St Ronnie rolled back 1/3 of his tax cuts and raised taxes 8 times in 6 years. By the end of his last term revenue doubled and 15 million jobs were created.

Interestingly, the Reagan economy and the Reagan stock market both began to recover right AFTER Reagan's 1982 tax increase, aka the biggest tax increase in history. A payroll tax increase to fix Social Security followed in 1983.

What happened to Reagan was he got brainwashed by a bunch of economic rightwing radicals who sold him an economic plan that was politically impossible to implement.

What ended up happening is, they implemented the easy part, unrealistically massive tax cuts, and abandoned the hard part, unrealistically massive spending cuts,

and thus ushered in the modern era of the massive deficit.

It was, in short, a crime.

 

[daveman]

OK...now work on it...

"...have you castigated liberals who do the same way you castigate Jarhead?"

Well, looky there. Guess you just read it wrong, huh?

Well looky...the pea brain is out to prove he/she is a certified pea brain...

Keep trying though...

If that allows you to continue feeling you're "superior", sure, whatever it takes.

Meanwhile, your continued avoidance of the question can only lead to one conclusion: You have indeed used the phrase "voting against their own best interests" before, and are thus a hypocrite for castigating Jarhead for using it.

 

[Gadawg73]

When are you people going to admit WE SPEND TOO MUCH and that social security and expecially MEDICARE ARE THE PROBLEM.
Runaway spending and programs that ARE BLANK CHECKprograms like Medicare are unsustainable.
We would have to increase taxes 50% ACROSS THE BOARD to balance the budget.
CUT THE DAMN SPENDING.
How hard is that to understand?

 

[Toro]

Please help us Conservatives understand this. Thanks.

The Tax Tsunami On The Horizon - IBD - Investors.com

To help pay for bizarre theories propagated by Republicans and conservatives over the past 30 years, i.e. tax cuts pay for themselves, as well as new programs we probably can't afford.

Oh, and to save the dollar, which the GOP has helped destroy. If not, I'm off to the Caymans.

 

[Toro]

When are you people going to admit WE SPEND TOO MUCH and that social security and expecially MEDICARE ARE THE PROBLEM.
Runaway spending and programs that ARE BLANK CHECKprograms like Medicare are unsustainable.
We would have to increase taxes 50% ACROSS THE BOARD to balance the budget.
CUT THE DAMN SPENDING.
How hard is that to understand?

SS and Medicare have to be radically reformed. Both should be run like real investment pools and nobody should be able to receive benefits until they are in the 70s.

 

[Cuyo]

When are you people going to admit WE SPEND TOO MUCH and that social security and expecially MEDICARE ARE THE PROBLEM.
Runaway spending and programs that ARE BLANK CHECKprograms like Medicare are unsustainable.
We would have to increase taxes 50% ACROSS THE BOARD to balance the budget.
CUT THE DAMN SPENDING.
How hard is that to understand?

For one thing, SS is paid for out of its respective payroll tax, and has not yet lost money. It's headed for insolvency due to people living longer, a problem both parties are now trying to correct.

But it has not lost money. It's paid every year out of its respective tax, including this year. That is not where the problem is. Add Medicare into the mix and that's not the case so much anymore... However, from this year's budget...
Payroll Taxes (SS & Medicare) - 940 Billion
SS and Medicare expense - 1.15 Trillion
Deficit from those two programs - 208 Billion.

Not to mention they're mandatory spending programs; POTUS has no control over them.

Don't get me wrong, that's real money and it's a serious problem that needs to be addressed, particularly because it's on course to get much, much worse. But Total Deficit? $1.17 Trillion - About 6 times the deficit from Medicare and SS.

Discretionary spending is $1.368 Trillion, with nearly $1T of that being military spending.

If we're going to balance the budget without raising taxes... Please, someone enlighten me as to where we should begin?

 

[Middleman]

Please help us Conservatives understand this. Thanks.

The Tax Tsunami On The Horizon - IBD - Investors.com

To help pay for bizarre theories propagated by Republicans and conservatives over the past 30 years, i.e. tax cuts pay for themselves, as well as new programs we probably can't afford.

Oh, and to save the dollar, which the GOP has helped destroy. If not, I'm off to the Caymans.

Better the sound idea that spending borrowed money to stimulate the economy, while going into debt you'll never be able to repay, will bring longterm economic prosperity to all.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Ya' mean like Clinton did when the terrorists entered this country. Rented apartments. Enrolled in flight school. Roamed freely. Financed the plan. Scoped targets. Accepted monetary wire transfers. Completed flight school, and finalized the plan on Clintons watch?

Wasn't it Bin Laden who declared war on the US while William Jethro was in office?

Was it "security experts" who told William Jethro that they had Bin Laden in their sites and could kill him right then and there on three fucking seperate occasions. All they needed was his approval?

Was it Clintons "security experts" who told the Bush administration a plan was in the works, and did they know the specifics of the plan?

BUSH BLEW IT.....all by his lonesome.

Those are The FACTS, Skippy!!​

Your loony liberal revisionist history is just too damn funny.

Clinton's pursuit of BJ's, and his failure to do his job cost the lives of 3000+ innocent americans. Even he admits it......Can't argue with that FACT!

LMAO!

Whew!! It's gettin'-to-be a full-time-job....educating you Jr. John-Wayne-groupies.

You've gotta get used-to-the-idea that Porky Limbaugh lies to you.​

Long before 9/11, the White House debated taking the fight to al-Qaeda. By the time they decided, it was too late. The saga of a lost chance.

***​

"For other observers, however, the real point was not that the new Administration dismissed the terrorist theat. On the contrary, Rice, Hadley and Cheney, says an official, "all got that it was important." The question is, How high a priority did terrorism get? Clarke says that dealing with al-Qaeda "was in the top tier of issues reviewed by the Bush Administration." But other topics got far more attention. The whole Bush national-security team was ob$e$$ed with setting up a national $y$tem of mi$$ile defen$e. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was absorbed by a long review of the military's force structure. Attorney General John Ashcroft had come into office as a dedicated crime buster. Rice was desperately trying to keep in line a national-security team—including Rumsfeld, Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell—whose members had wildly different agendas and styles. "Terrorism," says a former Clinton White House official, speaking of the new Administration, "wasn't on their plate of key issues." Al-Qaeda had not been a feature of the landscape when the Republicans left office in 1993. The Bush team, says an official, "had to learn about [al-Qaeda] and figure out where it fit into their broader foreign policy.' But doing so meant delay.

Some counterterrorism officials think there is another reason for the Bush Administration's dilatory response. Clarke's paper, says an official, "was a Clinton proposal." Keeping Clarke around was one thing; buying into the analysis of an Administration that the Bush team considered feckless and naive was quite another. So Rice instructed Clarke to initiate a new "policy review process" on the terrorism threat. Clarke dived into yet another round of meetings. And his proposals were nibbled nearly to death."

***

The question that should be asked, is.....why did LIL' DUMBYA allow bin Laden escape??????

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmtPBTybQ9k]YouTube - The Hunt For Bin Laden[/ame]​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I want taxes to raise so I can feel good every day I go to work, helping support bureaucrats worldwide, who otherwise wouldn't have jobs, excellent retirement plans, or top rate benefits. Also, think of the crack babies! And what about the illegal immigrants needing dialysis? Dialysis is expensive, man. They actually ration in the the UK for their own citizens. yet here in America I get the privilege of supporting them every time I go to work! Not to mention the single mothers who never figured out how to use birth control, or got any job skills to support their babies! I mean, they need our help! Think of the babies!

.....Specifically, the BLACK-ones, right?

​

 

[rightwinger]

I would love to give the Rich more tax cuts. God knows they deserve it for all they do for us. Its just that we can't afford it. I know we tried that "trickle down" stuff, but all they did was keep the money and send jobs overseas.

I promise, once the economy is better, we can start cutting taxes on the rich again. It is kind of an incentive.....if the wealthy start investing in the country again, creating jobs, expanding the economy, we will reward them for it

Until then they will have to bite the bullet like the rest of us

Incentive based tax structure for the wealthy makes sense.

Lets hold them to basic standards of performance. If you are creating jobs, the GDP is growing, economy is expanding....then we will cut your taxes

 

[Wicked Jester]

BUSH BLEW IT.....all by his lonesome.

Those are The FACTS, Skippy!!​

Your loony liberal revisionist history is just too damn funny.

Clinton's pursuit of BJ's, and his failure to do his job cost the lives of 3000+ innocent americans. Even he admits it......Can't argue with that FACT!

LMAO!

Whew!! It's gettin'-to-be a full-time-job....educating you Jr. John-Wayne-groupies.

You've gotta get used-to-the-idea that Porky Limbaugh lies to you.​

Long before 9/11, the White House debated taking the fight to al-Qaeda. By the time they decided, it was too late. The saga of a lost chance.

***​

"For other observers, however, the real point was not that the new Administration dismissed the terrorist theat. On the contrary, Rice, Hadley and Cheney, says an official, "all got that it was important." The question is, How high a priority did terrorism get? Clarke says that dealing with al-Qaeda "was in the top tier of issues reviewed by the Bush Administration." But other topics got far more attention. The whole Bush national-security team was ob$e$$ed with setting up a national $y$tem of mi$$ile defen$e. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was absorbed by a long review of the military's force structure. Attorney General John Ashcroft had come into office as a dedicated crime buster. Rice was desperately trying to keep in line a national-security team—including Rumsfeld, Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell—whose members had wildly different agendas and styles. "Terrorism," says a former Clinton White House official, speaking of the new Administration, "wasn't on their plate of key issues." Al-Qaeda had not been a feature of the landscape when the Republicans left office in 1993. The Bush team, says an official, "had to learn about [al-Qaeda] and figure out where it fit into their broader foreign policy.' But doing so meant delay.

Some counterterrorism officials think there is another reason for the Bush Administration's dilatory response. Clarke's paper, says an official, "was a Clinton proposal." Keeping Clarke around was one thing; buying into the analysis of an Administration that the Bush team considered feckless and naive was quite another. So Rice instructed Clarke to initiate a new "policy review process" on the terrorism threat. Clarke dived into yet another round of meetings. And his proposals were nibbled nearly to death."

***

The question that should be asked, is.....why did LIL' DUMBYA allow bin Laden escape??????

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmtPBTybQ9k]YouTube - The Hunt For Bin Laden[/ame]​

The REAL Question is:

Why didn't the ultmate draft dodging William Jethro Clinton kill Bin laden on any one of the 3 PRIME OPPORTUNITIES he had?

Ol' draft dodgin' Willie has got a whole lot of innocent american blood on his hands!

 

[Gadawg73]

When are you people going to admit WE SPEND TOO MUCH and that social security and expecially MEDICARE ARE THE PROBLEM.
Runaway spending and programs that ARE BLANK CHECKprograms like Medicare are unsustainable.
We would have to increase taxes 50% ACROSS THE BOARD to balance the budget.
CUT THE DAMN SPENDING.
How hard is that to understand?

For one thing, SS is paid for out of its respective payroll tax, and has not yet lost money. It's headed for insolvency due to people living longer, a problem both parties are now trying to correct.

But it has not lost money. It's paid every year out of its respective tax, including this year. That is not where the problem is. Add Medicare into the mix and that's not the case so much anymore... However, from this year's budget...
Payroll Taxes (SS & Medicare) - 940 Billion
SS and Medicare expense - 1.15 Trillion
Deficit from those two programs - 208 Billion.

Not to mention they're mandatory spending programs; POTUS has no control over them.

Don't get me wrong, that's real money and it's a serious problem that needs to be addressed, particularly because it's on course to get much, much worse. But Total Deficit? $1.17 Trillion - About 6 times the deficit from Medicare and SS.

Discretionary spending is $1.368 Trillion, with nearly $1T of that being military spending.

If we're going to balance the budget without raising taxes... Please, someone enlighten me as to where we should begin?

Friend, right now social security is a problem. When it was started there were 29 people paying into it for every person drawing a benefit check. Now it is 4 to 1. In 18 years when it is 2 people paying into social security for every person drawing a beneift, please tell us how that works.
When there are more folks drawing benefits than paying into it how does that work?
Medicare is the fastest growing program we have and is the 3rd largest program we run.
Cut it by 1/2 in the next ten years. Eliminate Medicare for wealthy citizens in 5 years.
Eliminate the entire program in 15 years.
If you believe raising taxes ever balances a budget then this debate is moot.

 

[rdean]

Please Post Reasons Why You Want Obama to Raise Taxes Here. Thanks!

How about if we just let the gigantic tax breaks for the rich lapse? We can start there and then see where we are at.

How come the Republicans crawl and beg for the approval of the rich? What is it about rich people that turns Republicans into bootlickers and willing bottoms?

 

[Gadawg73]

Please Post Reasons Why You Want Obama to Raise Taxes Here. Thanks!

How about if we just let the gigantic tax breaks for the rich lapse? We can start there and then see where we are at.

How come the Republicans crawl and beg for the approval of the rich? What is it about rich people that turns Republicans into bootlickers and willing bottoms?

Funny, the richest person running for Governor here is a life time Democrat.

 

[Political Junky]

Please Post Reasons Why You Want Obama to Raise Taxes Here. Thanks!

How about if we just let the gigantic tax breaks for the rich lapse? We can start there and then see where we are at.

How come the Republicans crawl and beg for the approval of the rich? What is it about rich people that turns Republicans into bootlickers and willing bottoms?

Funny, the richest person running for Governor here is a life time Democrat.

You totally missed the point of the post.

 

[rdean]

Please Post Reasons Why You Want Obama to Raise Taxes Here. Thanks!

How about if we just let the gigantic tax breaks for the rich lapse? We can start there and then see where we are at.

How come the Republicans crawl and beg for the approval of the rich? What is it about rich people that turns Republicans into bootlickers and willing bottoms?

Funny, the richest person running for Governor here is a life time Democrat.

You totally missed the point of the post.

They refuse to understand that no one is against rich people. Rich people just need to pay their fair share and support the country that made them so rich.

They also believe the government is the enemy. Their real enemy is lack of common sense.

 

[Bfgrn]

"...have you castigated liberals who do the same way you castigate Jarhead?"

Well, looky there. Guess you just read it wrong, huh?

Well looky...the pea brain is out to prove he/she is a certified pea brain...

Keep trying though...

If that allows you to continue feeling you're "superior", sure, whatever it takes.

Meanwhile, your continued avoidance of the question can only lead to one conclusion: You have indeed used the phrase "voting against their own best interests" before, and are thus a hypocrite for castigating Jarhead for using it.

It's not what I 'feel'...it is what I am.

Jarhead hung himself without my help. He decided that HE should make decisions for others. If I were to forward a belief that someone is voting against their own self interest, it would be an opinion, not a directive or a decision.

 

[daveman]

It's not what I 'feel'...it is what I am.

Yes. An arrogant buffoon.

Jarhead hung himself without my help. He decided that HE should make decisions for others. If I were to forward a belief that someone is voting against their own self interest, it would be an opinion, not a directive or a decision.

Where did he do that?

And have you ever noticed that liberals decide that what's in everyone's best interest is to keep liberals in power?

Just a coincidence, I'm sure.

 

[Bfgrn]

It's not what I 'feel'...it is what I am.

Yes. An arrogant buffoon.

Jarhead hung himself without my help. He decided that HE should make decisions for others. If I were to forward a belief that someone is voting against their own self interest, it would be an opinion, not a directive or a decision.

Where did he do that?

And have you ever noticed that liberals decide that what's in everyone's best interest is to keep liberals in power?

Just a coincidence, I'm sure.

“It's only arrogance if you're wrong”, so it is not arrogance.

Here we sit in an era of obstructionist right wing politicians that have put party and destroying our president above the best interests of our country, and you have the nerve to call out liberals?

When Republicans were a Senate minority in 1991-1992, there were 59 cloture filings. When President Clinton took office, with Republicans remaining the minority in the Senate, that number shot up to 80 in 1993-1994.

When Democrats reclaimed the Senate majority in the 2006 midterm elections, cloture filings shot up from 68 in 2005-2006 to a record 139 in 2007-2008.

The Rise Of Cloture: How GOP Filibuster Threats Have Changed The Senate | TPMDC