So OT, how bout taxing the rich 100%

[hypocritexposer]

Let him get his butt out, absence of courageous regulators is what caused a lot of our problems. Had they had any courage, Bush might have gone down in history as a pretty decent president.

You're probably right, Bush was too lax with the veto pen and too liberal with the spending, the last couple of years. He should have kept up with the deficits that were heading towards a balanced budget, with a Republican Congress and vetoed the budgets that were created by a Democratic Congress.

And worked to have Congress enforce the regulations that were already present.

...the President does NOT write the budget; the House does. Then the House sends the budget to the Senate for amending and its own vote. Then back for conference and a full vote by the Congress. THEN it goes to the President.


The red squares indicate when the GOP was in control of the House and the Senate. The blue squares indicate when the Democrats were in control of the House and the Senate. The purple squares indicate when the GOP controlled the House, the Democrats controlled the Senate.



Anything striking jump out at you? For both Democrat (Clinton and Obama) and Republican (Bush) Presidents, we see that when the Congress was controlled by the GOP - both houses - the budget deficits FELL.



And when either - or both - houses of Congress were controlled by the Democrats, the deficits rose.

The data's pretty clear; if we want fiscal conservatism, then the GOP - the more Conservative party - MUST recapture the Congress - BOTH houses. Getting one, or the White House is not enough. Leaving the Democrats in control of either chamber of Congress will not solve the problem; only a Conservatve takeover of Congress can reverse the debts we're accumulating.

http://simplyshrug.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=50:revisiting-the-bush-deficits&catid=31:general&Itemid=50

 

[Anonymous]

How many of these politicians who want to slash right now allowed some farmers to get over 250K in govt. payments for their crops?

These things are now structural that have to be changed. We never should have had them when we were fighting two wars and leveraging the economy. It made for a false economy that we are now paying for. At least the little old lady down the street or the next town over is being threatened by it.

I would say there is a lot of government over spending. The right thing to do is to take it out of the budget competently instead of just putting it on the nation's credit card with China. We shouldn't have perennial budget deficits. It shows that our leaders like the credit card too much.

I like the idea of sitting up a bipartisan/nonpartisan commission like the base closing commission-- that delves into all government spending- looking for waste- and makes recommendations of programs to cut or totally eliminate-- and all the Congress can do is vote yea or nea on each recommendation with no amendments or changes allowed....

OT, did you forget that a bipartisan commission just did that? obama ignored his "hand-picked" group.

Task Force Releases Deficit Recovery Plan

Nov 18, 2010

WASHINGTON—A bold plan that aims to reduce the federal deficit $7 trillion dollars by 2020 was released today by an influential group of former politicians, public policymakers, and thinkers.

Restoring America's Future, a plan focused on restoring the country's financial health, was released today by the Bipartisan Policy Center's Debt Reduction Task Force.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/46107/

The Bush tax cuts will expire at the end of 2012. That was the deal that was made. The revenue from those tax cuts coming to an end are already worked into the equation.

Did you want them raised again?

I think we should start taxing loud-mouthed Canadiens that have a bloated opinion of themselves.

How is providing information "having a bloated opinion of themselves"?

According to some of the debaters on C-Span there are many millionaires who want their taxes raised. They evidently feel obligated to do something to help. One politician had a list of 200.

I'm sure now that Soros has "retired" from the Hedge fund management game, he'll donate some of his hard earned money.

After suggesting that regulations needed to be tightened/expanded, he is now saying he is getting out of the Hedge Funds, because of the regulations.

:lol: :lol:

Isn't much of this commission the same as in the White House deficit reduction commission plan that was co-chaired by Senators Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles-- and then brought forward by the "Gang of Six"- U.S. senators: Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.; Kent Conrad, D-N.D.; Mike Crapo, R-Idaho; Dick Durbin, D-Ill.; Mark Warner, D-W.Va.; and Tom Coburn, R-Okla- supported by the White House--- and then thrown completely out the door by the Rep controlled House of Representatives because it includes tax changes-- and no tax laws can be enacted unless they come out of the House...
They then went Cut, Cap, Balance constitutional amendment direction-- which has a snowballs chance in Hell of ever being passed or ratified..

And even tho I support having to have a balanced budget- I oppose playing with the Constitution- and don't think we can pay off 50 years of deficit spending with cuts alone without putting the country into 3rd world status...Its going to take raising the revenue coming in too...

 

[TSR]

Let him get his butt out, absence of courageous regulators is what caused a lot of our problems. Had they had any courage, Bush might have gone down in history as a pretty decent president.

You're probably right, Bush was too lax with the veto pen and too liberal with the spending, the last couple of years. He should have kept up with the deficits that were heading towards a balanced budget, with a Republican Congress and vetoed the budgets that were created by a Democratic Congress.

And worked to have Congress enforce the regulations that were already present.

...the President does NOT write the budget; the House does. Then the House sends the budget to the Senate for amending and its own vote. Then back for conference and a full vote by the Congress. THEN it goes to the President.


The red squares indicate when the GOP was in control of the House and the Senate. The blue squares indicate when the Democrats were in control of the House and the Senate. The purple squares indicate when the GOP controlled the House, the Democrats controlled the Senate.



Anything striking jump out at you? For both Democrat (Clinton and Obama) and Republican (Bush) Presidents, we see that when the Congress was controlled by the GOP - both houses - the budget deficits FELL.



And when either - or both - houses of Congress were controlled by the Democrats, the deficits rose.

The data's pretty clear; if we want fiscal conservatism, then the GOP - the more Conservative party - MUST recapture the Congress - BOTH houses. Getting one, or the White House is not enough. Leaving the Democrats in control of either chamber of Congress will not solve the problem; only a Conservatve takeover of Congress can reverse the debts we're accumulating.

http://simplyshrug.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=50:revisiting-the-bush-deficits&catid=31:general&Itemid=50

As we have argued so, so, so, many times, that darn Dem. minority ruined everything during the Bush era. One thing I am pretty sure of -- "most" Americans, including a lot of the rich, are wiling to give a little more in order to help our country at this time.

Answer this, Did the deficit rise while Reagan was in office? Did the deficit rise while Bush was in office ? A yes or no will suffice,no political details please. Just yes or no.

 

[hypocritexposer]

Isn't much of this commission the same as in the White House deficit reduction commission plan that was co-chaired by Senators Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles-- and then brought forward by the "Gang of Six"- U.S. senators: Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.; Kent Conrad, D-N.D.; Mike Crapo, R-Idaho; Dick Durbin, D-Ill.; Mark Warner, D-W.Va.; and Tom Coburn, R-Okla- supported by the White House--- and then thrown completely out the door by the Rep controlled House of Representatives because it includes tax changes-- and no tax laws can be enacted unless they come out of the House...
They then went Cut, Cap, Balance constitutional amendment direction-- which has a snowballs chance in Hell of ever being passed or ratified..

And even tho I support having to have a balanced budget- I oppose playing with the Constitution- and don't think we can pay off 50 years of deficit spending with cuts alone without putting the country into 3rd world status...Its going to take raising the revenue coming in too...

There are similarities, but the "Gang's" plan only reduced the deficits by $500 Billion, which would still be double the Bush deficits

It is more in line with the Paul Ryan plan, I believe.

-In order to jump start the economy, the task force recommends a one-year payroll tax holiday for up to 7 million workers.

For example, it replaces a graduated system of six tax rates with just two, at 15 percent and 27 percent. This brings down taxes for the top bracket earners from a current high of 35 percent to encourage growth and investment.

Tax reform would eliminate most preferences, deductions, and credits. Exceptions would be mortgage interest and charitable giving, as well as the child tax credit, deductions that would be replaced with simplified 15 percent tax credits.

For Social Security, the task force has devised a plan that will make the entitlement solvent for 75 years. To achieve this, the amount of wages subject to payroll taxes would be gradually increased over 38 years, until it reached 90 percent of total wages.

Medicare growth would be capped from a current estimated GDP + 1.7 percent, to GDP + 1 percent. Should costs go higher, users would have the option of paying and staying on Medicare, or opting into a private plan.

Other cost-saving measures involve increasing Medicare Part B premiums from 25 to 35 percent over a five-year period, and reforming medical malpractice laws by capping awards, and instituting alternative and less costly methods for resolving disputes.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/46107/

 

[Larrry]

One thing I am pretty sure of -- "most" Americans, including a lot of the rich, are wiling to give a little more in order to help our country at this time.

That is a little contradictory because the obama regime only wants the "rich" to pay more taxes.

What I am willing to do in order to help the country is not pay more taxes. That only delays the inevitable. The more we delay the more the burden is shifted to our kids and grandkids. What I can do is do with less government services, maybe pay a higher fee if I go to a National Park etc. That way I am the one who is making the sacrifice.
A tax increase only encourages more spending and that burden then goes to my kids. Why is such a foregn concept to not spend more than we take in. What is the number 72 where the debt ceiling has been raised. At what point is it going to overload the pack horses.

 

[hypocritexposer]

Let him get his butt out, absence of courageous regulators is what caused a lot of our problems. Had they had any courage, Bush might have gone down in history as a pretty decent president.

You're probably right, Bush was too lax with the veto pen and too liberal with the spending, the last couple of years. He should have kept up with the deficits that were heading towards a balanced budget, with a Republican Congress and vetoed the budgets that were created by a Democratic Congress.

And worked to have Congress enforce the regulations that were already present.

...the President does NOT write the budget; the House does. Then the House sends the budget to the Senate for amending and its own vote. Then back for conference and a full vote by the Congress. THEN it goes to the President.


The red squares indicate when the GOP was in control of the House and the Senate. The blue squares indicate when the Democrats were in control of the House and the Senate. The purple squares indicate when the GOP controlled the House, the Democrats controlled the Senate.



Anything striking jump out at you? For both Democrat (Clinton and Obama) and Republican (Bush) Presidents, we see that when the Congress was controlled by the GOP - both houses - the budget deficits FELL.



And when either - or both - houses of Congress were controlled by the Democrats, the deficits rose.

The data's pretty clear; if we want fiscal conservatism, then the GOP - the more Conservative party - MUST recapture the Congress - BOTH houses. Getting one, or the White House is not enough. Leaving the Democrats in control of either chamber of Congress will not solve the problem; only a Conservatve takeover of Congress can reverse the debts we're accumulating.

http://simplyshrug.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=50:revisiting-the-bush-deficits&catid=31:general&Itemid=50

As we have argued so, so, so, many times, that darn Dem. minority ruined everything during the Bush era. One thing I am pretty sure of -- "most" Americans, including a lot of the rich, are wiling to give a little more in order to help our country at this time.

Answer this, Did the deficit rise while Reagan was in office? Did the deficit rise while Bush was in office ? A yes or no will suffice,no political details please. Just yes or no.

yes and yes


2 questions for you, a yes or no would suffice.....


Are the obama deficits roughly 3x the Bush deficits? Did Bush spend too much?

 

[Larrry]

Actually there are now 201...Barracko said he didn't need all the tax breaks either.....but he took'em.

You hit on something there. If they don't mind paying more, then nothing is stopping them. Donations would gladly be accepted

Larry, this was just one legislator, I think there are 535 total. 535X200 =?? TBred glad to argue with you as you are an open-minded guy imo although we may disagree.

I call that speculation and supposition at best So do you have 107000 signatures of people who want to pay more taxes to the government so they can blow it.

 

[TSR]

You're probably right, Bush was too lax with the veto pen and too liberal with the spending, the last couple of years. He should have kept up with the deficits that were heading towards a balanced budget, with a Republican Congress and vetoed the budgets that were created by a Democratic Congress.

And worked to have Congress enforce the regulations that were already present.

http://simplyshrug.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=50:revisiting-the-bush-deficits&catid=31:general&Itemid=50

As we have argued so, so, so, many times, that darn Dem. minority ruined everything during the Bush era. One thing I am pretty sure of -- "most" Americans, including a lot of the rich, are wiling to give a little more in order to help our country at this time.

Answer this, Did the deficit rise while Reagan was in office? Did the deficit rise while Bush was in office ? A yes or no will suffice,no political details please. Just yes or no.

yes and yes


2 questions for you, a yes or no would suffice.....


Are the obama deficits roughly 3x the Bush deficits? Did Bush spend too much?

Yes, Yes. Now we could go on and on. If Obama had inherited a "normal" state of fiscal affairs, he would probably be considered one of the worst presidents. Fact is , he didn't. I am still looking for that strong Independent candidate, be it that he runs under the guise of a Rep. or a Dem. but even better a bonified Independent.

 

[Larrry]

As we have argued so, so, so, many times, that darn Dem. minority ruined everything during the Bush era. One thing I am pretty sure of -- "most" Americans, including a lot of the rich, are wiling to give a little more in order to help our country at this time.

Answer this, Did the deficit rise while Reagan was in office? Did the deficit rise while Bush was in office ? A yes or no will suffice,no political details please. Just yes or no.

yes and yes


2 questions for you, a yes or no would suffice.....


Are the obama deficits roughly 3x the Bush deficits? Did Bush spend too much?

Yes, Yes. Now we could go on and on. If Obama had inherited a "normal" state of fiscal affairs, he would probably be considered one of the worst presidents. Fact is , he didn't. I am still looking for that strong Independent candidate, be it that he runs under the guise of a Rep. or a Dem. but even better a bonified Independent.

Compared to the economy now, you could almost call it normal during Bush's tenure. There is not one segment of the economy better and even worse than the obama regime claimed that it was going to be under their RULE.
So I guess obama qualifies as the "Worst president"

 

[TSR]

yes and yes


2 questions for you, a yes or no would suffice.....


Are the obama deficits roughly 3x the Bush deficits? Did Bush spend too much?

Yes, Yes. Now we could go on and on. If Obama had inherited a "normal" state of fiscal affairs, he would probably be considered one of the worst presidents. Fact is , he didn't. I am still looking for that strong Independent candidate, be it that he runs under the guise of a Rep. or a Dem. but even better a bonified Independent.

Compared to the economy now, you could almost call it normal during Bush's tenure. There is not one segment of the economy better and even worse than the obama regime claimed that it was going to be under their RULE.
So I guess obama qualifies as the "Worst president"

Well Larry, not that I am an Obama cheerleader, but care to compare what he inherited, to what Bush inherited??? Oh I know, the wars, 9/11 etc. Yeah those things eliminate Bush from bad decisions and all responsibilities. I really don't think history will see it that way.

 

[hypocritexposer]

Well Larry, not that I am an Obama cheerleader, but care to compare what he inherited, to what Bush inherited??? Oh I know, the wars, 9/11 etc. Yeah those things eliminate Bush from bad decisions and all responsibilities. I really don't think history will see it that way.

you forgot the:

"tech bubble"

lax financial regulations

NAFTA

U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000 (job losses)

and a desk drawer full of cigars