GOP Offers Budget

[rbell]

I personally will not be getting any of Bill's money. Nor do I want any. The Lord provides all my needs and then some.

Then why do you harp on this issue constantly?

I can careless what Bill pays...

Sorry to break it to you, but no one believes you. You post this all the time. If you didn't care, you wouldn't keep harping on it.

...but back in the 40's and 50's his bracket paid 90% and our economy still flourished...

Perhaps you should review basic history before posting things. The 90% tax bracket was to help us in paying for WW2. It finally caught up and began to bog down the economy. Of course, the bigger picture remains: Why do you feel such a huge need to punish success? You remember the "covet" commandment, don't you?

My questions have more to do with people appalled with passing a deficit to future generations then want to cut the taxes of the only ones who can currently afford to chip in. Then they try and justify that decision with the fallacy that cutting Bill's taxes will improve our present economy. I have never heard something so ridiculous or wrong in all my life.

You want to do away with deficits? Spend less than you take in. It applies across the board. And before you launch into another diatribe...there are millions of us Americans who feel this way. We are ready to kick the sorry butts of the D's and R's who can't show fiscal discipline.

If the right feels ok with raising the deficit by reducing Bill's contribution then I am ok with it also. I just don't want to hear them scream about the deficit or trying to pretend that cutting the taxes of a Hollywood movie star or professional athlete somehow creates jobs. I'm not buying what you're selling.

In one paragraph, you complain about a deficit...in another, you don't care...as long as you see rich folks' money in the equation. Would you please make up your mind?

I'm still amazed by your lack of understanding of basic economics. But oh well...you were probably innocently ignorant for a while...now, you're willfully so. Obama and Pelosi love folks like you. Their agenda goes through without a hitch, because you lack knowledge enough to question their plans.

Not to dwell on this point, but when I learned only 2% of Small Businesses are in the over $250K bracket, it further highlighted how most of the blind followers on the right don't understand the false illusions their leadership is selling when they say things like "Obama is raising taxes on small businesses". Then they go around being offended and saying this like it's the truth.

OK, this is why you cannot be taken seriously: When someone posts a point that is critical of the left, you do the knee-jerk thing: "I need to see more information before I believe this story." Yet, Obama states something, and since the messiah cannot lie, you swallow the line completely without question.

Have you ever thought to check on exactly what that $250K entails? Is it indeed net income...or is it some other metric? I'm not going to do your work for you. But if you desire any bit of intellectual honesty, you will check this out before posting again.

But...since you really don't desire to be intellectually honest (you are just waiting to pound anyone that is conservative), we know the outcome of this exercise.

My questions have more to do with people appalled with passing a deficit to future generations then want to cut the taxes of the only ones who can currently afford to chip in. Then they try and justify that decision with the fallacy that cutting Bill's taxes will improve our present economy. I have never heard something so ridiculous or wrong in all my life.

You do realize, don't you, that barely a majority of folks in this country pay income tax? So what do you want...a check from the government (that would be from people that work and pay taxes)? The government should take from people who earn their money, and give money to people who didn't earn it? Why the wealth envy? And why the outright dismissal of the obvious...that government should only take what is necessary, and no more?

Views like yours will bankrupt, and eventually wreck, the United States of America.

No, the truth is Obama is raising taxes on 2% of small businesses and if the owner of this "small business" is profiting more than $250K/yr then perhaps he can afford to chip in a bit more. I don't know but I am a long, long way from offended...

As usual, you miss the point. Wealth envy has clouded your judgement. Taxation isn't something based on, "Oh well, they won't miss it...so we'll take it." Views like yours allow government power to go unabated.

 

[LeBuick]

>Only if you call people making over $372,950 upper middle class.

Yes, I do. It is less than 10 times median pay. Some people could be 10 times more productive than the median worker. I doubt that anyone could be 1000 times more productive.

Median family income in Seattle is around $80,000 (two people making $20/hour gross $88,000, not unusual).

How can it be less than 10 times median pay when above $250K is the top 5% of wage earners???

 

[LeBuick]

Your memory isn't very good or mine has went through the bottom as I've grown older. The 40's WWll kept us going and then as thing were turning bad then the Korean war picked thing up again, but after the Korean war jobs were hard to find.

It might be your memory because when the WWII troops came home the suburban housing boom began. They were getting jobs with a pension and were buying single family homes in the suburbs back in those days.

Keep in mind when JFK was elected things were not doing well so he cut taxes and got us into Vietnam to help out the economy.

Your memory again, LBJ sent the first combat troops to Vietnam and Eisenhower sent the first advisers. Kennedy continued what Eisenhower started.

No things were not great in the 40's and 50's, we have had the best times of my life from Reagan's 2nd. year till now. I don't even think it is as bad today as it was under Carter by a long shot. I'm not buying a house with 12 to 15 percent interest and a car or tractor for 15 to 18 percent interest.

Your memory again, Carter inherited his mess with inflation etc... from Ford. Until today, Ford presided over the worst economy since the Great Depression. Carter is the one who began bringing us out of that recession when his treasury secretary Paul Volcker raised interest rates to 21%. By the way, Reagan kept Carters treasury secretary until 1987 when he replaced him with Greenspan.

You must have been well to do if you enjoyed the Reagan years that much. He certainly did nothing for the poor.

 

[LeBuick]

Then why do you harp on this issue constantly?

Sorry to break it to you, but no one believes you. You post this all the time. If you didn't care, you wouldn't keep harping on it.

Because of my love for my fellowman...

Of course, the bigger picture remains: Why do you feel such a huge need to punish success? You remember the "covet" commandment, don't you?

I haven't asked to punish wealth. I have no ability to raise anyone's taxes. However, I have no sympathy for a rich man whose taxes are being raised from 35 to 39%. They only pay more because they have more to pay. Right now there are millions of people who have nothing... They should feel blessed.

You want to do away with deficits? Spend less than you take in. It applies across the board. And before you launch into another diatribe...there are millions of us Americans who feel this way. We are ready to kick the sorry butts of the D's and R's who can't show fiscal discipline.

In one paragraph, you complain about a deficit...in another, you don't care...as long as you see rich folks' money in the equation. Would you please make up your mind?

Read my post more carefully, I talked about the rights concern with the deficit. The deficit, that thing that quadrupled under Reagan, ran a muck under Bush but is suddenly called "generational theft" when the Democrats raise the deficit like the Republican president before them did. It is the right that is so concerned with the deficit now that they no longer control the spending.

I agree we can reduce the deficit by spending less than we take in but now is not the time for that. We need Government to spend since they are the only ones with the money. We need the economy stimulated and the gov is the only one with the ability to do it.

Have you ever thought to check on exactly what that $250K entails? Is it indeed net income...or is it some other metric? I'm not going to do your work for you. But if you desire any bit of intellectual honesty, you will check this out before posting again.

Simple, taxable income. Your income after all your deductions have been subtracted. That is what determines what tax your pay.

You do realize, don't you, that barely a majority of folks in this country pay income tax?

Which is unfortunate that barely 50% of American's have the means to participate in the tax program. That is sad.

So what do you want...a check from the government (that would be from people that work and pay taxes)? The government should take from people who earn their money, and give money to people who didn't earn it? Why the wealth envy? And why the outright dismissal of the obvious...that government should only take what is necessary, and no more?

I am not on welfare but yes, I do want to see the government help those who are needy among us. Not necessarily the adults, but those children growing up without a solid roof over their heads, a decent meal and without fair chance to lift themselves above their current condition. If they don't get a good education, there is no way they will make a better living than their parents.

Views like yours will bankrupt, and eventually wreck, the United States of America.

That's your opinion but it's been working so far.

As usual, you miss the point. Wealth envy has clouded your judgement. Taxation isn't something based on, "Oh well, they won't miss it...so we'll take it." Views like yours allow government power to go unabated.

No Sir, you missed the point. Government needs taxes to run. As you pointed out before, there are many among who have not the means to pay taxes. This means those with the means must carry the load. This is a sad truth that we all must come to grips with.

I personally am in favor of flat taxes for everyone above poverty. Not only would it be fair, the government would have more revenue once they eliminate all the deductions.

 

[carpro]

The GOP offered their version of a budget today

Something democrats never did while Bush was President.

Democrat's sole strategy was to criticize and obstruct everything Republicans tried to do.

As spineless as Republicans are, they make democrats look like spoiled children.

 

[Revmitchell]

Read my post more carefully, I talked about the rights concern with the deficit. The deficit, that thing that quadrupled under Reagan, ran a muck under Bush but is suddenly called "generational theft" when the Democrats raise the deficit like the Republican president before them did. It is the right that is so concerned with the deficit now that they no longer control the spending.

I agree we can reduce the deficit by spending less than we take in but now is not the time for that. We need Government to spend since they are the only ones with the money. We need the economy stimulated and the gov is the only one with the ability to do it.

Either you are completely ignorant or you just simply ignore the vastness of the deficit being run up.

 

[LeBuick]

Something democrats never did while Bush was President.

Democrat's sole strategy was to criticize and obstruct everything Republicans tried to do.

As spineless as Republicans are, they make democrats look like spoiled children.

Something no minority party ever does and looking at what these guys put out there, they should have stuck with tradition. I might think different when they give us some numbers but what they released is not a working budget.

 

[LeBuick]

Either you are completely ignorant or you just simply ignore the vastness of the deficit being run up.

Tell me this, what problem is the deficit causing our current economy?

 

[Revmitchell]

Tell me this, what problem is the deficit causing our current economy?

Nice dodge............

 

[targus]

WOW, you're worried about take home pay. I didn't realize you make over $250,000 a year. Well, if they raise you taxes be proud you are doing your patriotic duty. :laugh:

No, my point is that you should not be too surprised if shortly taxes are paid for all working taxpayers.

Remember how Clinton promised us a tax cut and then came out a few days later and said that he never worked harder in his life but he could not figure out a way to give us a tax cut?

I can easily imagine a not too distant time when Obama will tell us that as much as he would like not to raise our taxes we must be patriotic and pay for all of these "very essential programs" that the democrats are coming up with.

I am predicting a TAX INCREASE for all of us.

 

[billwald]

>You are correct about the 90% tax, because many factories closed up for three to sometimes five months a year to keep profit down, so taxes wouldn't take the profit, it just wasn't worth it to keep 10% or less of each dollar of profit.

Anyone find a reference for this? I don't remember it happening.

 

[carpro]

Something no minority party ever does and looking at what these guys put out there, they should have stuck with tradition. I might think different when they give us some numbers but what they released is not a working budget.

Ephasis on the "might"?

Not very likely.

 

[carpro]

Tell me this, what problem is the deficit causing our current economy?

Whatever they are, they're about 9 times greater than they were during the Bush Administration.

You cared about deficits then. Why not now?

 

[LeBuick]

Whatever they are, they're about 9 times greater than they were during the Bush Administration.

You cared about deficits then. Why not now?

I didn't watch the deficit under Bush. Neither did the GOP which is why it got out of control...

 

[carpro]

I didn't watch the deficit under Bush. Neither did the GOP which is why it got out of control...

So you didn't pay any attention, but now you're watching?

And it's now 9 times worse, but that's OK because why?

You're watching?

Makes a lot of sense.

 

[LeBuick]

So you didn't pay any attention, but now you're watching?

And it's now 9 times worse, but that's OK because why?

You're watching?

Makes a lot of sense.

I'm not the ones suddenly watching the deficit, the hypocritical right is. It quadrupled under Reagan, rose more under both Bush's and now it is generational theft if the Democrats do likewise... Now that's a hypocrite if I ever saw some.

 

[carpro]

I'm not the ones suddenly watching the deficit, the hypocritical right is. It quadrupled under Reagan, rose more under both Bush's and now it is generational theft if the Democrats do likewise... Now that's a hypocrite if I ever saw some.

So you're saying you've never watched it, don't care, and aren't paying any attention now, either?

Considering your professed ignorance of the subject, maybe you should consider not commenting at all.

 

[rbell]

I'm not the ones suddenly watching the deficit, the hypocritical right is. It quadrupled under Reagan, rose more under both Bush's and now it is generational theft if the Democrats do likewise... Now that's a hypocrite if I ever saw some.

The Reagan deficit was because we had an enemy that could defeat us...and they were dangerous. Come on, quit playing dumb.

And I doubt you're willing to admit it, but if you'd bother looking you'd find out that many (if not most) conservatives had a huge problem with Bush's spending. Many of us (including myself) spoke out against it.

But that would mess up your argument, so you'll ignore it. Nice job.

 

[just-want-peace]

LB sez:

I agree we can reduce the deficit by spending less than we take in but now is not the time for that. We need Government to spend since they are the only ones with the money. We need the economy stimulated and the gov is the only one with the ability to do it.

After making such a confession, you would do well to observe the old adage:
"Tis better to keep quiet and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt!"

Now I'm not calling you a fool, but statements like this quote from you, should make you ponder your thought processes and fiscal knowledge a bit prior to "bloviating" (love that term from O'Reilly) on the subject!

And just in case you still don't see the point, gov't has no money that they don't get from you - that same money that you would spend for groceries, autos, recreation etc that you now no longer have since they legally robbed you of it.

 

[carpro]

And just in case you still don't see the point, gov't has no money that they don't get from you - that same money that you would spend for groceries, autos, recreation etc that you now no longer have since they legally robbed you of it.

You are mistaken.

Under Obama, the government is printing money like there's no tomorrow.

The rest he borrows from the Chinese.

They don't get any of that from me and you.

...but they will eventually ...

and it's going to be painful for all of us....and our great great great grandchildren.

So, maybe you're right after all.