Since 911 we have started two wars and created the Homeland Security Department ($42B in 2008). We have troops leaving life and limb on the Asian battlefields. So, what are we sacrificing as a nation? Well, we had the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. We added added the prescription drug plan for seniors (estimated $1.2T+ expense first decade) without adding a revenue source to pay for it.
Now, a new administration proposes raising the taxes on those who benefited most in 2001 and 2003. Starved of Tea Parties over the past eight years while the national debt was doubled, we had modestly attended Tea Parties in all 50 states protesting taxes and government in general. Though we just had an election with the most votes cast in history, the protesters complained that their voices were not being heard. The governor of Texas threatens secession and few (if any) Republicans criticize his crazy talk. (Did 600,000 Americans die in vain during the Civil War?)
What a selfish and spoiled bunch we are. Where is the sacrifice? People are grabbing their pitchforks and attending "Tea Parties" even though we have representation and we are not being taxed by a foreign power. We brag about our Super Power status but apparently don't want to pay for it. Soldiers lives and limbs - fine, higher taxes - NEVER!
Ironically - many of the Tea Party attendees (those that weren't packing side arms) appeared to be of an age where they are benefiting from Social Security and Medicare - or soon will. Watch out when/if we try to trim those expenses. The same crowd will show up, angrier still.
Bush made a legitimate argument that drug coverage would lower the cost of heath care by preventing expenditures on more acute problems, I disagree but he addressed the issue.
He tried to address S. S. but was pilloried.
We do not need to be taxed more, we need to spend less and the tidal wave released by the "O" will never be put back in the bottle.
What sacrifices would you have us make? We are paying taxes to promote security. We are in two wars. It is not the Conservatives that deny we are at war. It is not the Conservatives who are publishing "torture" of those responsible for 9-11.
You can yell, deny, obfuscate all you want, but if we had increased taxes, and (not agreed) they had increased government revenue, it would have just been pissed away on silly things.
Your boy cannot even tell everyone to pay some income taxes, how is he going to reduce entitlements to seniors?
lastly a quote from MTP today, former Rep D. Armey... As Milton Friedman said, "The real rate of taxation is the rate of spending." It's going to be pay me now or pay me later, but eventually every dime's worth of government spending is going to be taxation
So, Jim, you think we can start two wars, finance post 911 security and add prescription drug coverage (that was scored $500B+ over 10 years by Bush) without adding revenue. I guess Bush agreed with you. Thats why we pissed away a large surplus and ended up doubling the national debt in eight years.
So - you'd rather tax future generations than pay our own way today. As a nation we have sacrificed nothing but the blood of our troops.
The Good Doctor disputed that higher tax rates would raise revenue, even though they clearly did this under Clinton's 1993 tax bill and revenues dropped after Bush's tax cuts. It took Bush FIVE years to bring in the annual revenue that Clinton did. Dubya brought the federal governments take to 16% of GDP (Clinton was at 20%) - lowest since Eisenhower. He also doubled the national debt in 8 years - surprise, surprise.
How come all the supply siders - including Dick Armey - are now saying "taxes will have to go up" with all the new spending. Isn't that an admission that the higher rates will bring more revenue ala Clinton era?
Rich, another in your long series of comparing Apples to Oranges. If you honestly believe that the economy is in the same robust shape it was during the time when Clinton raised taxes than you need to cut back on the use of those mind altering pharmeceuticals. We have an administration now that will create more debt than all of the previous administration combined including the big spending Bush administtration. For what may I ask? This certainly smells and looks like a radical left wing attack by George Soros and his allies to take control of the US banking system. Why else are they forcing financial institutions to take money when they don't even want it?
You also stated that the Anti-Government spending Tea Parties were modestly attended. Since when is 300,000 a modest attendance on a working day, since we all know that the vast majority of conservatives do have jobs unlike the radical left wing groups that protested the Iraq War?
6 comments:
What kind of people are we?
Since 911 we have started two wars and created the Homeland Security Department ($42B in 2008). We have troops leaving life and limb on the Asian battlefields. So, what are we sacrificing as a nation? Well, we had the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. We added added the prescription drug plan for seniors (estimated $1.2T+ expense first decade) without adding a revenue source to pay for it.
Now, a new administration proposes raising the taxes on those who benefited most in 2001 and 2003. Starved of Tea Parties over the past eight years while the national debt was doubled, we had modestly attended Tea Parties in all 50 states protesting taxes and government in general. Though we just had an election with the most votes cast in history, the protesters complained that their voices were not being heard. The governor of Texas threatens secession and few (if any) Republicans criticize his crazy talk. (Did 600,000 Americans die in vain during the Civil War?)
What a selfish and spoiled bunch we are. Where is the sacrifice? People are grabbing their pitchforks and attending "Tea Parties" even though we have representation and we are not being taxed by a foreign power. We brag about our Super Power status but apparently don't want to pay for it. Soldiers lives and limbs - fine, higher taxes - NEVER!
Ironically - many of the Tea Party attendees (those that weren't packing side arms) appeared to be of an age where they are benefiting from Social Security and Medicare - or soon will. Watch out when/if we try to trim those expenses. The same crowd will show up, angrier still.
Your kidding right?
Bush made a legitimate argument that drug coverage would lower the cost of heath care by preventing expenditures on more acute problems, I disagree but he addressed the issue.
He tried to address S. S. but was pilloried.
We do not need to be taxed more, we need to spend less and the tidal wave released by the "O" will never be put back in the bottle.
What sacrifices would you have us make? We are paying taxes to promote security. We are in two wars. It is not the Conservatives that deny we are at war. It is not the Conservatives who are publishing "torture" of those responsible for 9-11.
You can yell, deny, obfuscate all you want, but if we had increased taxes, and (not agreed) they had increased government revenue, it would have just been pissed away on silly things.
Your boy cannot even tell everyone to pay some income taxes, how is he going to reduce entitlements to seniors?
lastly a quote from MTP today, former Rep D. Armey... As Milton Friedman said, "The real rate of taxation is the rate of spending." It's going to be pay me now or pay me later, but eventually every dime's worth of government spending is going to be taxation
So, Jim, you think we can start two wars, finance post 911 security and add prescription drug coverage (that was scored $500B+ over 10 years by Bush) without adding revenue. I guess Bush agreed with you. Thats why we pissed away a large surplus and ended up doubling the national debt in eight years.
So - you'd rather tax future generations than pay our own way today. As a nation we have sacrificed nothing but the blood of our troops.
Brilliant!
The Good Doctor disputed that higher tax rates would raise revenue, even though they clearly did this under Clinton's 1993 tax bill and revenues dropped after Bush's tax cuts. It took Bush FIVE years to bring in the annual revenue that Clinton did. Dubya brought the federal governments take to 16% of GDP (Clinton was at 20%) - lowest since Eisenhower. He also doubled the national debt in 8 years - surprise, surprise.
How come all the supply siders - including Dick Armey - are now saying "taxes will have to go up" with all the new spending. Isn't that an admission that the higher rates will bring more revenue ala Clinton era?
Rich, another in your long series of comparing Apples to Oranges. If you honestly believe that the economy is in the same robust shape it was during the time when Clinton raised taxes than you need to cut back on the use of those mind altering pharmeceuticals. We have an administration now that will create more debt than all of the previous administration combined including the big spending Bush administtration. For what may I ask? This certainly smells and looks like a radical left wing attack by George Soros and his allies to take control of the US banking system. Why else are they forcing financial institutions to take money when they don't even want it?
You also stated that the Anti-Government spending Tea Parties were modestly attended. Since when is 300,000 a modest attendance on a working day, since we all know that the vast majority of conservatives do have jobs unlike the radical left wing groups that protested the Iraq War?
300,000 is a very poor showing in a nation of 300mm people. Obama has drawn more than that in a single location - never mind all around the nation!
Perhaps, we are not a nation of whining malcontents.
Post a Comment