Who are Dems Fooling with this "Additional Revenues" Nonsense?

[bripat9643]

Shared sacrifice? Really? I paid around 30 percent of my income in taxes this year. Corporations only paid between 21 and 7 percent in taxes.

Same with the uber wealthy.

Wanna tell me how the rich and the corporations are sharing any kind of sacrifice?

Your claims are utter horseshit, as always.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I agree,,,,I just think everyone must sacrifice withthe spending cuts,,everyone.

How much do you propose cutting WIC?

Wow. Really, your position is cut anything and everything as long as the millionaires don't pay a dime more in taxes.

Unreal.

Well, apparently YOUR position is that we need to punish anyone who doesn't suck off the government teat so that those who do don't suffer as much for their dependency.

Talk about unreal.

 

[bripat9643]

10% 2011 WIC Budget Cuts: How It Can Be Done Without Hurting Americans | WIC woes

Now, can we talk about a 10% cut in taxes for the top 10% ?

No. Tax increases aren't on the table.

 

[bripat9643]

LOL, IN TEN YEARS...wow, that will surly HELP US TODAY..WHAT A JOKE and you swallow it hook line and sinker

You clearly do not know how our government works.

Yes she does. She especially understands how Democrats work.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You just made your point on ARPA....err...I mean the internet.

And there's a good chance your point was beamed across a network of satellites.

Actually I typed it on a PC, first introduced by a private company.

And where'd that company get the incentive for the technology for the PC? hint: It was a defense contract that spurred the development.

Yeah, because no one EVER would have come up with the idea if the military hadn't asked.

And it was STILL private industry that ran with the basic idea and made it into the commercial success it is. I doubt THAT concept ever even crossed the military's mind.

 

[bripat9643]

Notice how our far right posters avoid any discussion about any sacrifice by Corporate America and the uber wealthy, they just go back and bang on the middle class and the poor.
They don't want shared sacrifice. They want sacrifice only by those who can least afford it and no sacrifice who can afford to sacrifice the most. It's all black and white to them. How moral of them, how Christian of them!

Liberal Dictionary:
===========================
shared sacrifice - soak the rich

Notice how the left talks about shared sacrifice, but that never includes any of the favored Democrat constituencies like welfare tics and government employees sucking off the taxpayers.

Here's my idea of "shared sacrifice:" All government employees can take a 24% pay cut. The government can lay off about 1/3 of them.

How's that for "shared sacrifice?"

 

[bripat9643]

Dems started Korea and Vietnam, duh. Nixon lied about having a secret plan and dragged it out for SIX more years- totally corrupt...

Nixon got the US out before the end of his first term, dipstick.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

if you like higher taxes, then say that, calling them "additional revenues" or "revenue enhancements" is douchey and ridiculous

you don't hear those of us that favor spending cuts calling them "outlay reductions"

Who are they fooling?
Just other idiot liberals.

 

[Greenbeard]

What the fuckl are you talking about? WHo said anything like that?

Ryan had the GOP budget analyzed by CBO; that analysis was released ten days before the House voted on it.

Ryan handicapped the analysis by asking CBO to use specified assumptions about discretionary spending ("The path for all other federal spending excluding interest—that is, for discretionary spending and mandatory spending apart from that for Social Security and the major mandatory health care programs—was specified by Chairman Ryan’s staff.") and tax revenues ("The proposal also specifies a path for revenues relative to GDP—rising from 15 per- cent in 2010 to 18.5 percent in 2022 and 19 percent in 2030 and beyond.")

That is, in their analysis of the GOP budget, CBO was told to imagine a set level of revenues (independent of any actual particular tax policies) and particular levels for discretionary spending (independent of actual proposals). This is a dream budget. And yet it doesn't produce a balanced budget until the late 2030s. Even with its attacks on Medicaid and Medicare, its repeal of major pieces of legislation passed under Obama (the ACA, financial regulation), and its handicapping of revenues and discretionary spending.

But why would Ryan's staff include Obama's current discretionary spending in the specification for discretionary spending levels through 2050 in their fantasy budget? Is it possible to run a deficit without Obama or his discretionary spending?

 

[bripat9643]

Your chart is complete fiction.

From what I've read, it would cut it in half.

Then we can talk about how to pay for the unfunded Prescription Drug Plan and we can talk about cutting spending on the military by ending wars. Right?

Let's talk about ending Obamacare, Social Security and Medicare

 

[bripat9643]

If Republicans were serious, they would tell their leaders to STOP taking all that Blue State money. I'm so tired of funding ignorant fundagelicals. Seriously. Red States are black holes. Money goes in, nothing much of any good comes out.

There's a simple solution to your problem: put an end to all those welfare programs you despise so much.

 

[Moonglow]

if you like higher taxes, then say that, calling them "additional revenues" or "revenue enhancements" is douchey and ridiculous

you don't hear those of us that favor spending cuts calling them "outlay reductions"

damn, I won't get that tax write-off for my Lear jet. bytch!

 

[bripat9643]

It's a pretty simple question. If the deficits are not structural but instead are due solely to Obama's discretionary spending, why do they linger for nearly three decades in the GOP's dream budget?

Once you borrow money and spend it, you can't unborrow it.

It's a pretty simple concept.

 

[Greenbeard]

Once you borrow money and spend it, you can't unborrow it.

It's a pretty simple concept.

Debt ≠ Deficit.

 

[Cecilie1200]

10% 2011 WIC Budget Cuts: How It Can Be Done Without Hurting Americans | WIC woes

Now, can we talk about a 10% cut in taxes for the top 10% ?

No. Tax increases aren't on the table.

Not until I see some major spending cuts, they sure as hell aren't.

 

[kiwiman127]

How much do you propose cutting WIC?

Wow. Really, your position is cut anything and everything as long as the millionaires don't pay a dime more in taxes.

Unreal.

Well, apparently YOUR position is that we need to punish anyone who doesn't suck off the government teat so that those who do don't suffer as much for their dependency.

Talk about unreal.

First of all Cecilie, I have to tell you that I'm into bondage.
Secondly, I would guess that many of the people sucking off the government teat probably don't like being there. After over 30 years of basically no growth in wages in Real Dollars, people are having a real rough time living from check to check as their wages are being outpaced by inflation which translates to less expendable income.
So, in your opinion, only those who have not been included in the growth of the economy should be further penalized. Also those who have realized the rewards of the economic growth shouldn't also have to sacrifice to rail in this country's economic downturn.

Workers’ share of national income plummets to record low
Workers

Now paddle my Lilly white ass!

 

[Bfgrn]

if you like higher taxes, then say that, calling them "additional revenues" or "revenue enhancements" is douchey and ridiculous

you don't hear those of us that favor spending cuts calling them "outlay reductions"

One of the greatest things that happened in my lifetime is that Progressives losing their media monopoly.

Yea Frank, it lays the groundwork for a corporatocracy, the newest form of an aristocracy, which conservatives ALWAYS try to build.

 

[The Rabbi]

Once you borrow money and spend it, you can't unborrow it.

It's a pretty simple concept.

Debt ≠ Deficit.

Missing the point much?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Wow. Really, your position is cut anything and everything as long as the millionaires don't pay a dime more in taxes.

Unreal.

Well, apparently YOUR position is that we need to punish anyone who doesn't suck off the government teat so that those who do don't suffer as much for their dependency.

Talk about unreal.

First of all Cecilie, I have to tell you that I'm into bondage.
Secondly, I would guess that many of the people sucking off the government teat probably don't like being there. After over 30 years of basically no growth in wages in Real Dollars, people are having a real rough time living from check to check as their wages are being outpaced by inflation which translates to less expendable income.
So, in your opinion, only those who have not been included in the growth of the economy should be further penalized. Also those who have realized the rewards of the economic growth shouldn't also have to sacrifice to rail in this country's economic downturn.

Workers’ share of national income plummets to record low
Workers

Now paddle my Lilly white ass!

First of all, Kiwi, I have to tell you that you have no chance with me whatsoever.

Second of all, I don't care if they LIKE being there or not. Punishing people for being successful and doing without government handouts in order to spare pain to those who ARE dependent on government handouts leaves me spectacularly unimpressed.

In my opinion, making life harder on even more people by taking more of their money to send to a huge, bloated, overintrusive federal government to spend, misspend, and outright waste - however it is you want to "spin" it to play on the sympathies of the masses - is an incredibly bad idea, particularly in a bad economy. If people base their lives on the government being an obscenely obese highway robber of their neighbor's prosperity, and subsequently live less well when their neighbor refuses to pay up, I'm not planning to get all that exercised about it.

In short, until the government shows me some evidence that it plans to be more thrifty with the trillions of dollars it already takes from the taxpayers (and not even a liberal can make the claim that the government is thrifty or prudent with money), I cannot see my way clear to authorizing throwing more money at it.

 

[8537]

The Left pulls out this "sacrifice" shit whenever they want more money. It's either that or "investment." The gov't has never invested in anything successfully.

The government invested in a war against Germany and Japan a few decades ago. Perhaps you've heard of it.

Look up the word "invest". I do not think it means what you think it means.

I'm quite certain I know what it means. And even more certain I'm using it right.