Obama: Americans must pay fair share to cut deficit

[billvon 2,593]

>No, we only need to cut spending. There is more than enough money to
>run the country in an effective manner and provide all the services we
>need.

And the other side says "no, we only need to raise taxes; there is more than enough money to get us out of this mess if we just tax X Y and Z."

And both are right. Very few people have the guts to admit we need to do both - because it means giving up something important to _them._

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

How is that hilarious?

Because you're invoking a classic Communist quote to our Corporatocracy.

Thanks for this post
I now understand you better

Better yet, read some history and look up the actual definitions of words and you'll understand even more.

This country started out as a representative democracy, also known as a republic. Eisenhower warned of a shift towards corporatocracy with his famous "military industrial complex" speech and since then it has shifted so far in that direction that corporations are now considered people.

Our government has become corrupted, but in ways not well understood by the average person. The average person thinks the issue is left vs right, republican vs democrat, but in reality that is simply the circus to keep us from noticing it's really the plutocrats vs the other 98% of us.

Hey, if we're going to have a circus, isn't there at least supposed to be a little bread? Nope. These guys have even figured out a way to brainwash folks into arguing against even that.

So the thief tosses out only one bone for two dogs and they'll happily fight over it, while he breaks into the house and steals everything.

Truly amazing.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[ECVZZ 0]

Quote

Better yet, read some history and look up the actual definitions of words and you'll understand even more.

This country started out as a representative democracy, also known as a republic. Eisenhower warned of a shift towards corporatocracy with his famous "military industrial complex" speech and since then it has shifted so far in that direction that corporations are now considered people.

Our government has become corrupted, but in ways not well understood by the average person. The average person thinks the issue is left vs right, republican vs democrat, but in reality that is simply the circus to keep us from noticing it's really the plutocrats vs the other 98% of us.

Hey, if we're going to have a circus, isn't there at least supposed to be a little bread? Nope. These guys have even figured out a way to brainwash folks into arguing against even that.

So the thief tosses out only one bone for two dogs and they'll happily fight over it, while he breaks into the house and steals everything.

Truly amazing.

This post is so dead nuts accurate that it bears repeating. The part in red should be posted permanently in LARGE letters across the top of this forum.

You get a gold star for today Paul; nice job!

G. Jones

"I've never been quarantined. But the more I look around, the more I think it might not be a bad idea."

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

>No, we only need to cut spending. There is more than enough money to
>run the country in an effective manner and provide all the services we
>need.

And the other side says "no, we only need to raise taxes; there is more than enough money to get us out of this mess if we just tax X Y and Z."

And both are right. Very few people have the guts to admit we need to do both - because it means giving up something important to _them._

You would be correct except for the fact that there is a finite amount available to collect as taxes. Add to that the fact that virtually every time the government has increased taxes in the name of paying down the debt or deficit, it has only led to increased spending. If I knew that the increased taxes would actually be used as intended then the pill would be easier to swallow but only a fool would go along with a plan to increase taxes to pay down the debt.
If the government is serious about this...really serious...then they need to prove they mean business by first sacrificing their own lifestyles. They need to lead by example, not lead in the Bush-Clinton style of "do as I say not as I do". It's difficult for most people to accept paying more taxes when they are asked to by someone speaking from the 1st tee at the Congressional Country Club.
No, Bill, the answer is not sacrificing by paying more taxes. The answer is to be found entirely by sacrificing all of what is now being payed for by deficit spending and some of what is actually being funded.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[kallend 1,726]

Quote

Quote

>No, we only need to cut spending. There is more than enough money to
>run the country in an effective manner and provide all the services we
>need.

And the other side says "no, we only need to raise taxes; there is more than enough money to get us out of this mess if we just tax X Y and Z."

And both are right. Very few people have the guts to admit we need to do both - because it means giving up something important to _them._

You would be correct except for the fact that there is a finite amount available to collect as taxes. Add to that the fact that virtually every time the government has increased taxes in the name of paying down the debt or deficit, it has only led to increased spending.

Well, CUTTING taxes sure didn't decrease spending, did it, and the deficit increased mightily.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Well, CUTTING taxes sure didn't decrease spending, did it, and the deficit increased mightily.

Spending rarely goes down for any reason and, when it does, it is only by a token amount.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>No, we only need to cut spending. There is more than enough money to
>run the country in an effective manner and provide all the services we
>need.

And the other side says "no, we only need to raise taxes; there is more than enough money to get us out of this mess if we just tax X Y and Z."

And both are right. Very few people have the guts to admit we need to do both - because it means giving up something important to _them._

You would be correct except for the fact that there is a finite amount available to collect as taxes. Add to that the fact that virtually every time the government has increased taxes in the name of paying down the debt or deficit, it has only led to increased spending.

Well, CUTTING taxes sure didn't decrease spending, did it, and the deficit increased mightily.

Maybe if we raise taxes that will reduce spending. Hey, I've got an idea .... why don't we pass a balanced budget amendment. Surely nobody interested in reducing our deficit would oppose that.
http://biggovernment.com/pfrank/2011/07/26/why-democrats-hate-a-balanced-budget-amendment/

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

why don't we pass a balanced budget amendment.

I don't think that's going to be the panacea people expect. The language in bills is invariable ambiguous. So, that means a judge would have to interpret what they meant. Too much leeway for an activist judge to take over Congress' job.

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

We have to increase taxes.

Another thread showed there is simply not enough money, even if you took all corporate profits and all taxable income of millionaires and billionaires, to cover this. The Federal Government must cut spending, and by alot.

We are all engines of karma

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

We have to increase taxes.

Another thread showed there is simply not enough money, even if you took all corporate profits and all taxable income of millionaires and billionaires, to cover this. The Federal Government must cut spending, and by alot.

Even that is not enough. We need to close many of the tax loopholes.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

We need to close many of the tax loopholes.

Uhm, when you take all of their profits and taxable revenue, I don't think there is any room level for loopholes...

We are all engines of karma

[kd5xb 1]

I think we need to quit borrowing money to give away to other "nations" who hate us anyway. I don't know how much that might be, in relation to our deficits, but it sure couldn't hurt.

I'm a jumper. Even though I don't always have money for jumps, and may not ever own a rig again, I'll always be a jumper.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

We need to close many of the tax loopholes.

Uhm, when you take all of their profits and taxable revenue, I don't think there is any room level for loopholes...

Then we need tax rebates so there's something to take back.

[billvon 2,593]

>If I knew that the increased taxes would actually be used as intended then
>the pill would be easier to swallow but only a fool would go along with a
>plan to increase taxes to pay down the debt.

And if Democrats KNEW that the cuts would be used to reduce the deficit, instead of just give tax breaks to the rich again, then they'd go along with serious spending increases.

Stalemate.

>If the government is serious about this...really serious...then they need to
> prove they mean business by first sacrificing their own lifestyles.

That's the kind of happy crappy do-nothing politics I am glad we are NOT seeing. It's like me "sacrificing" by agreeing to not use any coal-based power. Does absolutely nothing, of course, since I generate my own power, and I can run on batteries if I really have to. But it sure does make a good sound bite on CNN!

>They need to lead by example, not lead in the Bush-Clinton style of "do
>as I say not as I do". It's difficult for most people to accept paying more
>taxes when they are asked to by someone speaking from the 1st tee at
>the Congressional Country Club.

And it's difficult to listen to someone claim that they cannot stand to pay any more taxes as they take their second vacation of the year to Hawaii.

>No, Bill, the answer is not sacrificing by paying more taxes. The answer is
>to be found entirely by sacrificing all of what is now being payed for by
>deficit spending and some of what is actually being funded.

So the answer - "make someone else sacrifice." Do you really, honestly think that will work?

[billvon 2,593]

>Another thread showed there is simply not enough money, even if you
>took all corporate profits and all taxable income of millionaires and
>billionaires, to cover this.

I recently posted an analysis of what it would take to do this. A 60% cut in discretionary spending and an 80% increase in taxes would close the hole instantly. Half the money would come from cuts, half from increased taxes. About as fair as it gets.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

>If I knew that the increased taxes would actually be used as intended then
>the pill would be easier to swallow but only a fool would go along with a
>plan to increase taxes to pay down the debt.

And if Democrats KNEW that the cuts would be used to reduce the deficit, instead of just give tax breaks to the rich again, then they'd go along with serious spending increases.

Stalemate.

>If the government is serious about this...really serious...then they need to
> prove they mean business by first sacrificing their own lifestyles.

That's the kind of happy crappy do-nothing politics I am glad we are NOT seeing. It's like me "sacrificing" by agreeing to not use any coal-based power. Does absolutely nothing, of course, since I generate my own power, and I can run on batteries if I really have to. But it sure does make a good sound bite on CNN!

>They need to lead by example, not lead in the Bush-Clinton style of "do
>as I say not as I do". It's difficult for most people to accept paying more
>taxes when they are asked to by someone speaking from the 1st tee at
>the Congressional Country Club.

And it's difficult to listen to someone claim that they cannot stand to pay any more taxes as they take their second vacation of the year to Hawaii.

>No, Bill, the answer is not sacrificing by paying more taxes. The answer is
>to be found entirely by sacrificing all of what is now being payed for by
>deficit spending and some of what is actually being funded.

So the answer - "make someone else sacrifice." Do you really, honestly think that will work?

How many vacations did you take last year, Bill? I took five days off and never left the state. Same this year. I am willing to sacrifice by giving up the unecessary BS our taxes pay for like the stupid wars we are in, the BS welfare system that rewards laziness, and the BS laws that require government contractors to pay union wages. There is more than enough pork to trim to bring the budget under control.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

>Another thread showed there is simply not enough money, even if you
>took all corporate profits and all taxable income of millionaires and
>billionaires, to cover this.

I recently posted an analysis of what it would take to do this. A 60% cut in discretionary spending and an 80% increase in taxes would close the hole instantly. Half the money would come from cuts, half from increased taxes. About as fair as it gets.

Wrong again, my good man. To be the fairest we need to cut spending to stay within our current income. Raising taxes will do nothing good. Absolutely nothing.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Dems Push Bill for Unlimited Debt

Contending that “the very idea of a debt ceiling for federal borrowing places unacceptable restraints upon government,” three Democratic Representatives—Jim Moran (VA), Hank Johnson (GA) and Jerry Nadler (NY)—have introduced legislation that would bar any limits on the amount that could be borrowed.

“We should never permit a lack of money to prevent the government from taking whatever action may be needed for the betterment of our society,” Moran argued. “If the money isn’t already in-hand or can’t be obtained due to mindless opposition to higher taxes, the option of borrowing must not be infringed.”

Moran maintained that “the notion that there ought to be some sort of upper limit on the amount of resources the government has access to is archaic and inappropriate under a democratic Constitution. In America, the government is the people. There is no need for the people to hamper itself with this kind of constraint.”

“The mere existence of a debt ceiling allows the enemies of progressive policies to periodically divert voters’ attention away from the benefits of those policies by focusing an unwarranted emphasis on the costs,” Nadler said in support of the bill. “It encourages miserly, penny-pinching behavior that can only slow the pace of our nation’s transformation toward the attainment of social justice.”

In related news, Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill) asserted that the President’s efforts to stimulate the economy have failed “because they weren’t big enough. We show too much trepidation when it comes to spending. Too many of my colleagues get squeamish over taking money from taxpayers to fund government programs. The reality is that the average American has far more money than he needs. The real crime is that we let these people keep money that would be better spent if it were in the government’s hands.”

[charlie5 0]

The government does not deserve any more of our money.

Cut spending, that is all. To give them any more money would be akin to giving a another hit to a crackhead who swears they'll quit using if only they can get one more hit. BULLSH*T.

Giving them more money would only result in more money being pissed away.

The feather butts bounce off ya like raindrops hitting a battle-star when they come in too fast...kinda funny to watch. - airtwardo

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

How many vacations did you take last year, Bill? I took five days off and never left the state. Same this year.

This isn't something to be proud of. Work to live, not live to work. I took two 3 week vacations this year and have no regrets at all. Even if you're self employed, you need some time away, and if you're not, you don't owe your employer that much.

[billvon 2,593]

>How many vacations did you take last year, Bill? I took five days off and
>never left the state. Same this year. I am willing to sacrifice by giving up
>the unecessary BS our taxes pay for like the stupid wars we are in, the BS
>welfare system that rewards laziness, and the BS laws that require
>government contractors to pay union wages.

So you won't sacrifice anything that actually affects you. You're down with making other people sacrifice, though.

Well, fine. Get ready for that to be done to you. Lots of people are willing to "sacrifice" the luxuries that the rich enjoy - and their argument is just as good as yours. And there are more poor people than rich people. So if it comes down to which group can get the votes to make someone else sacrifice, the poor will win.

>There is more than enough
>pork to trim to bring the budget under control.

Prove it. List the cuts that will close the budget gap.

[dreamdancer 0]

good man...

Quote

Declaring that "Social Security is the most successful government program in our nation's history," and decrying threats to Medicare and Medicaid that would punish Americans who did not cause the current economic crisis, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders brought thousands of progressives from across the Midwest to the feet Saturday, as they cheered his message to President Obama and the congressional "Super Committee":"We can deal with deficit reduction in a way that is fair and responsible."

“Instead of balancing the budget on the backs of working families, the elderly, the children, the sick and the most vulnerable," Sanders said, "it is time to ask the wealthiest people and most profitable corporations in this country to pay their fair share.”

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/09/18-4

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

I recently posted an analysis of what it would take to do this.

Where can I find this?

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Dems Push Bill for Unlimited Debt

Please tell me this is a joke...

We are all engines of karma

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

>How many vacations did you take last year, Bill? I took five days off and
>never left the state. Same this year. I am willing to sacrifice by giving up
>the unecessary BS our taxes pay for like the stupid wars we are in, the BS
>welfare system that rewards laziness, and the BS laws that require
>government contractors to pay union wages.

So you won't sacrifice anything that actually affects you. You're down with making other people sacrifice, though.

Well, fine. Get ready for that to be done to you. Lots of people are willing to "sacrifice" the luxuries that the rich enjoy - and their argument is just as good as yours. And there are more poor people than rich people. So if it comes down to which group can get the votes to make someone else sacrifice, the poor will win.

>There is more than enough
>pork to trim to bring the budget under control.

Prove it. List the cuts that will close the budget gap.

Name something that is provided to me by tax dollars and I will tell you whether or not I am willing to sacrifice that service. For example, aviation. I enjoy renting a small plane once in a while for a couple hours. It is not a very popular stance among other pilots but I am more than willing to pay user fees to fly. Why should the entire nation pay for the fun and enjoyment of a few dozen thousand?

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.