"David Moffitt"
weaselstomping.org> wrote in message
news:13mm5gdiki0er1b@corp.supernews.com...>
> "Olin"
comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:usOdnclkAsnRmfbanZ2dnUVZ_rGrnZ2d@comcast.com...
> |
> | "David Moffitt" weaselstomping.org> wrote in message
> | news:13ml6e5l9o1ak8e@corp.supernews.com...
> | >
> | > "Olin" comcast.net> wrote in message
> | > news:8qWdnU8esJF6aPTanZ2dnUVZ_vumnZ2d@comcast.com...
> | > |
> | > | "Richard Thomas" dicksonlife.com> wrote in message
> | > | news:9dnjm311l71emc5sljmmesjte4preln3sc@4ax.com...
> | > | > On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 07:41:55 -0600, "Olin" comcast.net>
> wrote:
> | > | >
> | > | >>The real question remains... at what point do we end the argument
> over
> | > | >>terminology and recognize that laying more of the burden off onto
> the
> | > | >>people
> | > | >>least able to pay is ONLY an answer for those most able to pay?
> | > | >
> | > | > But it isn't the only answer for those most able to pay. There's
> also
> | > | > the current situation which is to lay the burden off of those
> least
> | > | > able to pay *and* those most able to pay and lay it on the middle
> | > | > classes.
> | > | >
> | > | > That burden is, of course used to pay for services for those
> unable
> to
> | > | > pay. This takes place by passing that money to businesses which
> are
> | > | > owned by those most able to pay.
> | > | >
> | > | > Personally, I'm not for increasing taxes on the poor but I sure as
> | > | > hell know they aren't going to vote for tax cuts for the middle
> | > | > classes whie the current situation endures.
> | > | >
> | > |
> | > | The middle class has always paid the largest share of the tax
> burden.
> | > With
> | > | the lobbying power of the uber rich and the lack of resources of the
> | > poor,
> | > I
> | > | don't really see that changing much at all.
> | > |
> | > | And tacking on taxes to businesses simply moves the weapon... not
> the
> | > | target. Any business that can will simply figure their tax bill into
> | > their
> | > | overhead and pass as much of it as they possibly can on to the
> consumer.
> | > |
> | > | The only difference there is, the business gets the deduction... not
> the
> | > | schlub who's paying a large share of the tax.
> | >
> | > So what is your solution? If you raise taxes the cost is passed on to
> the
> | > consumer. If you give the government more money they will find some
> more
> | > pork barrel projects to spend it on to buy votes. Here is a unique
> | > solution,
> | > cut federal spending. We do not need more bridges to nowhere or golf
> | > courses
> | > named after congressmen..
> | >
> |
> | Well, for starters, if the republicans had done what they claimed they
> were
> | going to do at any point in the last thirty years, i.e. cut taxes AND
> | spending, we'd be much better off than now... and they wouldn't be
> cutting
> | and running for cover and pandering to every nutball in the country,
> hoping
> | for a vote or two.
>
> As opposed to the Democrats who raise taxes and spending?
>
Addressed later in the thread, but just for fun. Yeah, okay... democrats tax
and spend. Republicans BORROW and spend.
Every single recent record deficit has come at the hands of a "fiscally
responsible" republican administration, often helped out along the way by
conservative democrats.
Care to tell me which is cheaper, raising taxes and paying cash, or using
the country's credit card and paying interest?
> |
> | As it is, there are two presidents who've managed to actually balance a
> | budget and only one to ever present a balanced budget proposal to
> congress.
> | One was Bill Clinton. Claim all the smoke and mirrors you choose, as did
> the
> | republicans for almost two years running up to Shrub getting elected,
> but
> | Slick balanced that budget and actually paid down some of Reagan's
> leftover
> | debt.
>
> Projected balance after he left office. Politicians work with a lot of
> smoke
> and mirrors.
>
None the less, he did it. And, he left office with a projected surplus.
What are Shrub's chances of leaving office with even a slightly smaller
deficit?
> |
> | The only president to actually send congress a balanced proposal since
> | before WWII was Lyndon Johnson.
> |
> | It didn't take Shrub long to blow through that, and a whole lot more.
> |
> | There's a reason for that. You recall the old saw about how democrats
> tax
> | and spend? Well, the rest of that goes, republicans borrow and spend.
> Under
> | Reagan, Bush the Elder and now the Shrub, we've actually had politicians
> who
> | made their bones complaining about deficit spending completely turn
> their
> | backs on their promises, throw caution to the wind and drag out the
> public
> | credit card to pay for the things THEY wanted. They've actually used
> phrases
> | like, "The deficit is not a problem."
>
> Congressmen tack a lot of pork onto every bill that comes through.
>
And that excuses promising fiscal responsibility and delivering what we've
gotten, precisely, how?
> |
> | Right along with "the constitution is nothing but a damned piece of
> paper,"
> | so I'm thinking the "solution" probably IS the problem. "We" elected
> these
> | clowns to fix these problems and all they've done is made 'em much, much
> | worse.
>
> APPLAUSE!
>
Do recall, it was conservatives who made those statements.
It was conservatives who gave us the budgets these recent years, and it's
conservatives who get to carry the deficit monkey around with 'em.
For all but the last couple years, the water on that front has been carried
entirely by republicans, and their legacy is abysmal as should be noted by
anybody with an IQ over thirty and even the most rudimentary math skills.
Under the single most liberal administration this country's ever seen...
even under the wildest pipe dreams of liberal wannabes that never had a
chance in hell of passing a parked car, much less a bill, I seriously our
national debt situation could possibly have been any worse than it is right
now.
Oh yeah, it's all about 9/11. Give me a break! Have you noticed we never
caught the asshole responsible for that? Have you noticed the numbnutz in
charge is on record saying that's no longer important.
The last US president to wage a war following a sneak attack, kicked ass and
took names AND found ways to pass legislation to give hope to a hopeless
nation, even with a mostly hostile congress!
This rabble enjoys a record just a little bit less stellar... even while
enjoying pretty much a rubber stamp congress.
The comparisons are simply startling!
