GOP says it'll block bills until tax cuts extended

quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:
quote:
Originally posted by LE89:
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
You're just an incompetent liar, then??? Give two examples of the waste of federal taxpayer dollars. Just two, as long as the waste amounts to at least $1million


Lying about what??
I just wrote a four million dollar change to move rooms from one side of the building to the other side because the "official in charge" liked the looks of it on the other side. Can that count as four of your required examples? Maybe my next example can be just a half.

I'm not a liar or a BS'er, you are full of yourself. I see why response to you is so negative, throughout. I'm sad for you.
Like I posted earlier, whenever he asks he is always given plenty of examples of waste. He just chooses to ignore them. I can't imagine any person living in the US that can't see examples of waste all around them.


Waaaahhhhhhh. If you see waste all around you and you do nothing, YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Give us one specific example, Jennifer. Just one. Should be easy.
quote:
Originally posted by mad American:
Poor, poor ingnorant juan, he still thinks the Bush tax cuts were for the rich only. If he was as intelligent as he would like us to think he is he would do some research. He would then know that the cuts were across the board.



quote:
poor ingnorant juan
That right there is ironical.

The rich pay all the taxes so they therefore are the primary beneficiary of any cuts in federal income tax rates. Isnt that true?
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:
quote:
Originally posted by LE89:
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
You're just an incompetent liar, then??? Give two examples of the waste of federal taxpayer dollars. Just two, as long as the waste amounts to at least $1million


Lying about what??
I just wrote a four million dollar change to move rooms from one side of the building to the other side because the "official in charge" liked the looks of it on the other side. Can that count as four of your required examples? Maybe my next example can be just a half.

I'm not a liar or a BS'er, you are full of yourself. I see why response to you is so negative, throughout. I'm sad for you.
Like I posted earlier, whenever he asks he is always given plenty of examples of waste. He just chooses to ignore them. I can't imagine any person living in the US that can't see examples of waste all around them.


Waaaahhhhhhh. If you see waste all around you and you do nothing, YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Give us one specific example, Jennifer. Just one. Should be easy.
I've given you many. You ignore them and keep asking. So I have to conclude that either you are too stupid to read and comprehend, or you are avoiding acknowledging them. Which is it? As far as "doing something about waste", how would one do that? People speak up all the time about waste and only get someone like you, that ignores the complaint. If I had the power you can bet your ass I'd do something about it.
Why, I believe that is a lie. You cant provide even one specific example can only mean government waste is minimal. If you knew of actual instances of waste you could post them here and fellow forum participants could notify various media outlets to alert them to the need for investigation by the appropriate entities.
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
Why, I believe that is a lie. You cant provide even one specific example can only mean government waste is minimal. If you knew of actual instances of waste you could post them here and fellow forum participants could notify various media outlets to alert them to the need for investigation by the appropriate entities.
Juan, they're reported daily by news sources/citizens and nothing is done. Are you playing stupid or are you really that dumb? It's becomming hard to tell. Let me help you. Google government waste. You do know how to do that don't you?
Finally, a concrete example. All Obama family members should be deported immediately to prevent even the allegation of preferential treatment. Between her, and the 20,000,000 other foreign nationals living here, we could cut the fedgov budget 6%. Another 30-40% and we can have a balanced budget.
quote:
Finally, a concrete example. All Obama family members should be deported immediately to prevent even the allegation of preferential treatment. Between her, and the 20,000,000 other foreign nationals living here, we could cut the fedgov budget 6%. Another 30-40% and we can have a balanced budget.

Sounds good to me. As usual you leave out the part you don't like. I said MULTIPLY THIS EXAMPLE BY THE THOUSANDS. She is not just one case. You ask for examples. Did you google yet?
•Examples from multiple Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports of wasteful duplication include 342 economic development programs; 130 programs serving the disabled; 130 programs serving at-risk youth; 90 early childhood development programs; 75 programs funding international education, cultural, and training exchange activities; and 72 safe water programs.[6]
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
Why, I believe that is a lie. You cant provide even one specific example can only mean government waste is minimal. If you knew of actual instances of waste you could post them here and fellow forum participants could notify various media outlets to alert them to the need for investigation by the appropriate entities.


http://www.cagw.org/
quote:
Originally posted by TAXEDENOUGH:
I know a fellow that has turned down 3 jobs because he had benefits left. 99 weeks?. How long is long enough?


i'm sure anyone would turn down job offer's for that huge $250 weekly unemployment check they get here in Alabama, i mean hey, they can sure live fat on that can't they?
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:
quote:
Finally, a concrete example. All Obama family members should be deported immediately to prevent even the allegation of preferential treatment. Between her, and the 20,000,000 other foreign nationals living here, we could cut the fedgov budget 6%. Another 30-40% and we can have a balanced budget.

Sounds good to me. As usual you leave out the part you don't like. I said MULTIPLY THIS EXAMPLE BY THE THOUSANDS. She is not just one case. You ask for examples. Did you google yet?


WTP???? I said 20,000,000 foreigners which should be about $200billion dollars in fedgov aid.
quote:
The rich pay all the taxes so they therefore are the primary beneficiary of any cuts in federal income tax rates. Isnt that true?

quote:
The rich pay all the taxes so they therefore are the primary beneficiary of any cuts in federal income tax rates. Isnt that true?

They don't pay all the taxes, just most of them. One more time r e a l s l o w.
The tax cuts were across the board. It would have been a good move if the leaders at the time had not spent money like drunken sailors at a *****house.
Letting the tax cuts expire would have increased everyones taxes! Letting the tax cuts expire would have increased everyones taxes! The top tax rate is currently 35%. That does not include property tax, state and local tax. I am not rich but don't hate the rich. What the he11 is your problem with someone keeping what they earned?



5
Married couple earning $40k would have seen their taxes increase less than $100. Couple earning $1million would add $40,000.

The time for paying for the deficit spending of the last 50 years has arrived. The people that pay all the taxes are going to have to pay more, there is no money to take from the middle class. Why is that hard to grasp????
quote:
Letting the tax cuts expire would have increased everyones taxes! Letting the tax cuts expire would have increased everyones taxes!


This may only be a technicality, but it's worth pointing out. Letting the tax cuts expire would simply be allowing them to do what they were designed to do. Making them permanent when they were proposed would have required the Senate to have the 60 seat filibuster proof majority, which it did not have. Any proposals by the current Congress should be treated as new legislation. The old legislation called for a tax increase in 2010.

quote:
What the he11 is your problem with someone keeping what they earned?


Absolutely nothing. The 16th Amendment created the proverbial slippery slope that has allowed Congress to confiscate the fruits of our labor. So I agree, we should be able to keep our money. Now, how do you propose we do that and meet our obligations?

quote:
The time for paying for the deficit spending of the last 50 years has arrived. The people that pay all the taxes are going to have to pay more, there is no money to take from the middle class. Why is that hard to grasp???


While I'm opposed to income taxation because it is legalized theft, I concede that as a country we seem to be fine with it. I also concede that the math simply doesn't work for those who claim we can tax less and still cover our obligations. Any tax cuts should still be coupled with massive spending cuts.

What we've essentially done it let one generation run up a huge credit card bill and stiff the next generation with paying for it. The problem is that we're not requiring those who ran up the bill to give up any of the stuff it bought.
quote:
Married couple earning $40k would have seen their taxes increase less than $100. Couple earning $1million would add $40,000.

Let the couple earning one million keep their forty grand. Taxes are high enough! Cut spending. Cut out all but the most basic social spending. There's government housing, transportation and you can even get a government cell phone.
quote:
Cut out all welfare spending, cut it 100%. Done. After medical care for the uninsured, that is less than $200billion. You only need to find $1500billion more in cuts.


I don't understand where you keep going with this. I understand that no single cut is going to get the budget under control. Is your point that since no single cut can solve our problems that we shouldn't make any cuts? Additionally, you need to explain what you mean by "welfare." Many things are deemed "welfare," but there is no singular welfare budget. Defense and social security should be on the table as well. What we cannot do is continue to spend as we have in the past and pretend that we can tax our way to simultaneously having a balanced budget and thriving economy.
No one will tolerate the cuts necessary to balance the budget, or even get close. The TEA party cabal is not willing to compromise their Medicare Part D entitlement much less the limitation of their primary care. This all talk, and there will be no changes. Pols have to get elected, which means earmarks have to continue and favor have to be repaid. Look back at news reports from the 1980s and you will see exactly the same rhetoric. Everything new is old, again.
quote:
No one will tolerate the cuts necessary to balance the budget, or even get close. The TEA party cabal is not willing to compromise their Medicare Part D entitlement much less the limitation of their primary care. This all talk, and there will be no changes. Pols have to get elected, which means earmarks have to continue and favor have to be repaid. Look back at news reports from the 1980s and you will see exactly the same rhetoric. Everything new is old, again.


I don't disagree with anything you've said here, but that doesn't address the question I've asked you. You have come out in favor of tax increases, or at least suggested that they might be necessary:

quote:
The time for paying for the deficit spending of the last 50 years has arrived. The people that pay all the taxes are going to have to pay more, there is no money to take from the middle class. Why is that hard to grasp???


Is your defense of this that spending habits can't be changed, therefore we should tax to cover the spending? If it's impossible to cut spending, why isn't it impossible to raise taxes? Should we take the position that change is hard, therefore we should never consider it and stay the course of economic ruin?
quote:
If it's impossible to cut spending, why isn't it impossible to raise taxes?


I think theres a logic disconnect in there. The complete economic collapse of the USA is a foregone conclusion at this point. There will be no significant reform of spending nor taxation until the collapse has become a reality, much like the MBS/CDS induced depression which we now endure. I find it humorous that people get so excited about things that they have no control over, or even the slightest impact on.
quote:
There will be no significant reform of spending nor taxation until the collapse has become a reality, much like the MBS/CDS induced depression which we now endure. I find it humorous that people get so excited about things that they have no control over, or even the slightest impact on.


I can't really disagree with that.
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
quote:
Originally posted by LE89:

I should have been more specific, I suppose. The Gov't cannot create a "non-politician" job out of thin air without creating a need out of thin air.

Postal Jobs - Private sector does it much better, they just can't compete with a service that loses money

National Park Service - Un-necessary but I do like the Parks.

Air Traffic Controllers - Replaced by Reagan when they went on strike. Replaced by CONTRACTORS for the most part, with GOVT officials to oversee them.

NASA - everything produced by private companies. GOVT workers do not turn a wrench, oversight only.

Yes we can hire millions of contractors to produce something mandated by the GOVT and hire thousands of GOVT employees to oversee. Almost all are unnecessary.

NASA working for DOD has evolved, not originally intended. Just another GOVT program that could not be shut down after its' goal was accomplished. Not against NASA, just a good example. Once a program starts, it never ends. It may have highs and lows in funding but it never ends.

GOVT produces nothing, zilch (except more worthless paper and coin money). Services, yes, zillions of un-necessary services. Private sectors do it better, period.


Most of US jobs dont produce anything, as we are a service economy.

No private company will do the constitutionally mandated USPO job for a fixed unit cost as we have today.

I am going to go ahead and assume that you have no idea what NASA, in HSV or elsewhere, actually does.

Obviously, as demonstrated in this forum repeatedly, we need a better public education system.


As to the US manufacturing section, WRONG AGAIN!

"According to the latest United Nations Statistics data (http://unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama/dnllist.asp) the United States is the largest manufacturing nation, with an output of approximately $1.83 Trillion. This is followed by China at $1.79T, with these two nations far outstripping any other nations (Japan $1.05T, Germany $767B and Italy $381B). The rate of growth in manufacturing in China far outstrips that of the US, with its manufacturing industry growing more than an order of magnitude in the last two decades, during which the US has not even doubled its output.

According to the Department of Labor (sourcing the United Nations United Nations, National Accounts Main Aggregates Database, http://unstats.un.org/) citing 2005 data the U.S. accounts for 20.6% of the worlds manufacturing nearly 1.5 times that of the 2nd largest (Japan 13.3%) and over twice 3rd largest (Germany 8.2%). The aggregate combination of the EU-15 This link has an explanation of the calculation methods and links to the charts showing the worlds top manufactures: http://www.dol.gov/asp/media/r...xa_manufacturing.htm"

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What...ndustry_in_the_world
Elin, don't confuse him with the truth, facts, and figures. He will just get angry and attack you personally, call you a liar, question your education, integrity, and lack of ability to do anything about it, and demand video proof and tape recordings, etc. to back up anything you say.
quote:
Originally posted by onepatriot7:
quote:
Originally posted by TAXEDENOUGH:
I know a fellow that has turned down 3 jobs because he had benefits left. 99 weeks?. How long is long enough?


i'm sure anyone would turn down job offer's for that huge $250 weekly unemployment check they get here in Alabama, i mean hey, they can sure live fat on that can't they?


They do it everyday. I've personally seen it myself.
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
quote:
Cut out all welfare spending, cut it 100%. Done. After medical care for the uninsured, that is less than $200billion. You only need to find $1500billion more in cuts.


I don't understand where you keep going with this. I understand that no single cut is going to get the budget under control. Is your point that since no single cut can solve our problems that we shouldn't make any cuts? Additionally, you need to explain what you mean by "welfare." Many things are deemed "welfare," but there is no singular welfare budget. Defense and social security should be on the table as well. What we cannot do is continue to spend as we have in the past and pretend that we can tax our way to simultaneously having a balanced budget and thriving economy.


Well said dolemite. It's a multitude of spending cuts and every single American will have to share in the pain.
quote:
Originally posted by LE89:
Millionaire's Private Space Capsule Launches on Maiden Voyage

Accomplished by a millionaire, not a billionaire, not a trillionaire, not a gazillionaire. Private companies operate with greater efficiency, period.


FOunder Elon Musk says he's broke, getting by on $200,000 per month. As founder of Paypal and Tesla, his fortune is all on paper.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06...siness/22sorkin.html
quote:
Originally posted by LE89:
Elin, don't confuse him with the truth, facts, and figures. He will just get angry and attack you personally, call you a liar, question your education, integrity, and lack of ability to do anything about it, and demand video proof and tape recordings, etc. to back up anything you say.


Old dog juan hunt, like his previous incarnations on this forum, gets nasty and personal when confronted with the facts. I don't post for him so much as for those he might misinform.
quote:
Originally posted by ferrellj:
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
quote:
Cut out all welfare spending, cut it 100%. Done. After medical care for the uninsured, that is less than $200billion. You only need to find $1500billion more in cuts.


I don't understand where you keep going with this. I understand that no single cut is going to get the budget under control. Is your point that since no single cut can solve our problems that we shouldn't make any cuts? Additionally, you need to explain what you mean by "welfare." Many things are deemed "welfare," but there is no singular welfare budget. Defense and social security should be on the table as well. What we cannot do is continue to spend as we have in the past and pretend that we can tax our way to simultaneously having a balanced budget and thriving economy.


Well said dolemite. It's a multitude of spending cuts and every single American will have to share in the pain.


Overall, the debt commission had many good suggestions. They just didn't go far enough.
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
quote:
Originally posted by ferrellj:
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
quote:
Cut out all welfare spending, cut it 100%. Done. After medical care for the uninsured, that is less than $200billion. You only need to find $1500billion more in cuts.


I don't understand where you keep going with this. I understand that no single cut is going to get the budget under control. Is your point that since no single cut can solve our problems that we shouldn't make any cuts? Additionally, you need to explain what you mean by "welfare." Many things are deemed "welfare," but there is no singular welfare budget. Defense and social security should be on the table as well. What we cannot do is continue to spend as we have in the past and pretend that we can tax our way to simultaneously having a balanced budget and thriving economy.


Well said dolemite. It's a multitude of spending cuts and every single American will have to share in the pain.


Overall, the debt commission had many good suggestions. They just didn't go far enough.


Balancing the budget has nothing to do with the outstanding debt, so calling the group a debt commission is not factual. Within 5-7 years, payments to service the debt will be the largest component of the fedgov budget, topping $700billion. A plan that does not include paying down at least 10% of the debt per year is not progress.
While I agree with you that we must try and pay some (10% would be a great target) of this debt each year, if we are ever to get out of this mess, I think trying to put al of the pressure on 3% of the people is ridiculous. EVERYONE should contribute, and it should be fairly distributed. Let's talk about a flat tax. Even the WH is agreeing that by not going with the Reps current recommendations it could lead us further into the downward sprial we have found ourselves.

Larry Summers, Obama's chief economic adviser, told reporters that if the measure isn't passed soon, it will "materially increase the risk the economy would stall out and we would have a double-dip" recession. That put the White House in the unusual position of warning its own party's lawmakers they could be to blame for calamitous consequences if they go against the president.Socialism and redistribution of weatlh will not work in our type of society, nor any type of society, where individuals need to be motivated in order to create and sustain prosperity.
If the budget of the fedgov was cut 50%, we would still not have a balanced budget this year. The American people will not tolerate such a drastic cut. You have to tax the people that have the money, there is no more to get from the middle class folks. Thats the reality, and yes it is unfair, but life is generally unfair, but the wealthiest 10% of Americans will just have to suck it up and move on.
juan, the budget mess and the debt did not happen over night nor will it be solved in short order. However, raising taxes is not the answer. Reduction of spending is the only answer. The problem wasn't created because of taxes being too low. It was created by out of control spending.
No they should not just "suck it up and move on". We got in this mess by the large number of government handouts we have doled out over the years.
We have known SS will go belly up, there was no way to sustain it.
Right now is the time to say, no more SS. If you are younger than 50 years old, make other plans, cause it is not going to happen. Take your SS contribution and put it somewhere to make money for yourself, and require people to save for their retirement.
Stop bailing out all of these companies and their unions. Don't let them make promises they cannot fulfill.
Institute a fair tax plan that captures the taxes when the money is spent, not when it is made. This will allow us to tax those who are working in cash only businesses (prostitutes, drug dealers, used car dealers, etc) and capture what is essentially lost revenue.
Stop giving huge donations to other countries, most of which could care less for us. Help those of us at home first.
Encourage civic based organizations to help the needy (Salvation Army, etc) and continue to give tax credit for those donations.
Legalize pot and stop this ridiculous drug war. Freeing up much of the prison space, and effectively ending the border war with Mexican drug lords.
Continue Medicare and Medicaid for those who need it, but have an honest assessment of the individuals and see if they are truly capable of doing for themselvs. Have them work in community service positions in order to provide something back to the community. Make people respect what you give them, and let them think they are earning it.
The government has created this class ennvy that most of the liberal media is so obsessed with. They want you to believe that the rich eat caviar and sip wine while laughing at those in need. I am here to tell you that is not the truth.
Most of us, that you will consider "rich", struggle with bills, and college tuitions, and self employment issues such as health insurance each and every day. I pay plenty of taxes, and give plenty to charity. At some point and time you just throw up your hands and say it is not worth it any more. Why work and save for your retirement, when you know they plan to take it away and give it to someone else. It is a two edged sword. Like some have said before, you can sit idly by while they do it, but when they come for "yours" who will speak for you at that time? And don't worry, they will come for yours as well, as more and more people realize that there is no need to continue to try and do what is best for their family, the coffers get smaller and they have to go elsewhere to find the money to fund some of their ridiculous prjects.
teyates & ferrell-

I'm not necessarily in disagreement with you, but your suggestions aren't going to happen. They level of cuts needed includes too many things that politicians won't touch, and most voters don't want them to. It's already been pointed out, but servicing the debt alone is becoming a growing portion of the budget - a portion that can't just be "cut." This problem is not as easy to solve as some are making it out to be.
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
This problem is not as easy to solve as some are making it out to be.


Well I'd hate to be one to make it out solving the budget problem as "easy"...but I was somewhat astounded at recent CBO numbers when they ran a budget with the Bush tax cuts in place. It is the CBO...and how accurate are they? Well I don't know, but the folks at REASON magazine seemed comfortable enough in quoting from the report.

I posted on that article in another thread...they call it the 19% solution.

dolemitejb has posted on this fact of tax revenue historically being no more than 19% of GDP regarless of what the tax rates are.

Taking that into account, projecting 19% GDP tax revenue, the CBO came up with a 10 year budget that would be balanced by 2020.

What drastic cuts and services would we lose? Not much.

The recomendation was a measley 3.6% cut in the budget...approx $129 billion out of approx $4 plus Trillion annual budgets.

3.6%...and to quote from the article:

quote:
A balanced budget in 2020 based on 19 percent of GDP would mean $1.3 trillion in cuts over the next decade, or about $129 billion annually out of ever-increasing budgets averaging around $4.1 trillion. Note that these are not even absolute cuts, but trims from expected increases in spending.


3.6% cuts in expected increases in spending.

Giving the apocalyptic hyberbole that politicains and special interest groups resort to when any sort of cut is duscussed, this really needs to be studied more.

3.6% and yet I've heard barely a peep about it in the news.

Now this doesnn't address our near $14 trillion debt...but a balanced budget has to be a step in the right direction.

Add Reply

Likes (0)

×
×
×
×