You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Youre All Morons
- Thread starter omegapoint
- Start date
Quote from cuz69:
Govt spending? The Democrats are bigger govt spenders.
Well that's clearly false. As a percentage of GDP, Reagan increased the debt 11.3% in his first term, and 9.2% in his second. George HW Bush increased it 13.1%. Bill Clinton REDUCED it 0.6% in his first term and REDUCED it 8.2% in his second term. George W. Bush INCREASED it 6.9% in his first term, and at least 3.9% in his second (although that figure is certainly falsely low). Carter, by comparison REDUCED it 3.2%
And r u forgetting that there is war ( that had that piece of shit Clinton, had 3 chances to get Bin Laden) that we might/probably would not be in right now.
The only confirmed and verified offer for Bin Laden was made by the Taliban to the Bush administration and was rejected in favor of the war.
The Bush administration did say that they could have gotten him in Tora Bora, but decided to let the Pakistani troops do the job rather than our guys.
And one more thing, I have stated in many threads, since the Dems are so concerned about the US and nothing else, like the rest of the world doesn't exist.
Actually most of the world has been alienated by the Republicans. In fact, Bush's popularity is almost unmeasurably low outside of the US. In contrast to Clinton's foreign visits, Bush only had one country where there weren't massive demonstrations against him.
How about the wasteful spending done right here at home...i.e(welfare,overcrowded prisons, SSI, Section 8 low income housing, funding school systems where the teachers and the kids don't give a fuck... to mention a few)
Okay. So what have the Republicans done about these issues, given that they controlled congress, the presidency, and the courts for years?
Quote from ByLoSellHi:
I would hope that almost everyone here would get behind a 15% flat tax on income, or alternatively, a national sales tax in lieu of an income tax.
The time has come.
If government can't discipline its spendthrift ways, starve the beast.
It's not their money.
What does "starve the beast" mean in practice? It means spending stays the same but taxes on the rich go down, and the difference is borrowed.
What we need is a constitutional amendment that requires the federal operating budget to be balanced. Almost every (and maybe every) state constitution has a provision like this. If we want more spending then taxes must be raised to pay for it.
Just the fact you confuse a governments right to levy "property" with punitive taxes on wages says something, no?
Jefferson would roll over in his grave if he knew men raising families were pissing away half their income each year on various Federal, state, local, sales, excise, utility and property taxes. And I'm lucky. I worked a year in New York in the 90's with the Clinton/Cuomo/Dinkins triplet and my paycheck was LESS than half my gross. Pre the "hidden" taxes we all pay each day to boot.
Jefferson would roll over in his grave if he knew men raising families were pissing away half their income each year on various Federal, state, local, sales, excise, utility and property taxes. And I'm lucky. I worked a year in New York in the 90's with the Clinton/Cuomo/Dinkins triplet and my paycheck was LESS than half my gross. Pre the "hidden" taxes we all pay each day to boot.
Quote from bigdavediode:
Well that would disagree with the founding father's views, specifically Jefferson's views, that taxation should be graduated with the rich paying a higher percentage.
"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785.
So I ask you Cuz, AAA, and any others -- why was Jefferson wrong?
President Bush has vetoed one bill in 8 years.
That includes appropriations' bills.
The GOP controlled whether appropriations' bills made it to Bush's desk for 6 out of the last 8 years.
Our national debt is now twice what it was when Bush took office.
I don't care whether you're a Republican, Democrat, libertarian or Existentialist; if you can't admit or don't believe that Republicans bear primary responsibility for running up the national credit card bill in phenomenal fashion (and with policies that will ensure the tab keeps running higher even after Bush is gone), then you are either disingenuous or delusional.
That includes appropriations' bills.
The GOP controlled whether appropriations' bills made it to Bush's desk for 6 out of the last 8 years.
Our national debt is now twice what it was when Bush took office.
I don't care whether you're a Republican, Democrat, libertarian or Existentialist; if you can't admit or don't believe that Republicans bear primary responsibility for running up the national credit card bill in phenomenal fashion (and with policies that will ensure the tab keeps running higher even after Bush is gone), then you are either disingenuous or delusional.
Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:
Just the fact you confuse a governments right to levy "property" with punitive taxes on wages says something, no?
Jefferson would roll over in his grave if he knew men raising families were pissing away half their income each year on various Federal, state, local, sales, excise, utility and property taxes. And I'm lucky. I worked a year in New York in the 90's with the Clinton/Cuomo/Dinkins triplet and my paycheck was LESS than half my gross. Pre the "hidden" taxes we all pay each day to boot.
Exactly. Apparently dave is not aware that the Founding Fathers wrote a constitution that specifically prohibited a graduated income tax or any income tax at all for that matter. That's why it was necessary to have an amendment to allow it. The people who naively ratified the amendment were assured it would never be more than low single digits. They were probably also assured only the rich would pay it.
Quote from Specterx:
What does "starve the beast" mean in practice? It means spending stays the same but taxes on the rich go down, and the difference is borrowed.
What we need is a constitutional amendment that requires the federal operating budget to be balanced. Almost every (and maybe every) state constitution has a provision like this. If we want more spending then taxes must be raised to pay for it.
"Obama will reinstate pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budget rules, so that new spending or tax cuts are paid for by spending cuts or new revenue elsewhere."
I've been through McCain's site and can't find his position on pay-go rules. His site just says he'll have "fiscal discipline" and humorously says that he will pay the debt with the debt spent in Iraq. Not sure what that means.
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
Exactly. Apparently dave is not aware that the Founding Fathers wrote a constitution that specifically prohibited a graduated income tax or any income tax at all for that matter. That's why it was necessary to have an amendment to allow it.
Which part "specifically prohibited a graduated income tax?"