Reply With Quote
Does it cover 10 years of tax cuts?
With all due respect Mr.President, we’re still waiting
It goes on with a paragraph each for 10 topics. Education Subsidies, Farm Subsidies, Military Overreach, Transportation programs, Housing Subsidies, Federal Worker Pay, Energy Subsidies, Government-run Health Care, Drug War, and Social security. It's a worth while read.It’s been nearly two years since you made that pledge, Mr. President. Since then, you’ve signed into law an $800 billion “stimulus” package and a massive new health care en lement—adding trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities to our grandchildren’s tab.
Our looming debt crisis threatens to destroy the American dream for future generations. Yet your administration continues piling up deficits of over a trillion dollars a year. By 2012 our national debt will be larger than the entire U.S. economy. Isn’t it past time you identified the programs you’d cut?
In all fairness, both parties got us into this mess. “Deficits don’t matter,” Vice President Cheney scoffed as the Bush administration and a Republican Congress led one of the biggest spending sprees in American history, nearly doubling federal outlays over eight years. Our bipartisan flight from responsibility is a national disgrace—and it’s fast becoming a national disaster. Vague promises to eliminate “waste, fraud, and abuse” won’t cut it any more. Both parties need to step up with specific and substantial cuts.
As a start, they can consult downsizingGovernment.org,where the Cato Ins ute has begun posting the results of our page by page, line by line review of the federal budget. With the Cons ution as our guide, we’ve identified scores of agencies to eliminate and programs to zero out, putting America on the path toward fiscal sanity:
Does it cover 10 years of tax cuts?
Cato is part of the VRWC, funded about 50% with oil money. They are professional, paid liars.
"Yet your administration continues piling up deficits of over a trillion dollars a year."
You Lie.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036
This is nothing but VRWC deficit-scaremongering as a another tactic to keep starving the beast.
The deficit is almost completely
1) Repug unfunded bogus/botched war
2) Repug unfunded tax cuts
3) Repug 35+ years of mismanaged/bubble-y/unregulated financial sector and Banksters Great Depression. (Repugs want to repeal the weak financial regulation and defund CFPA)
TARP will turn a profit, and soon.
Repug this, repug that...
The demonrats have controlled congress for some time now, and things are getting worse. Not better.
This is not meant to be a defense of Obama (or Bush, who Cato criticized broadly on many issues too).
The reality is that Crane, Pope, Koch et all don't need to wait for anything. All they need to do is get up their lazy asses, run on their doctrine and ideas, and let the people decide if they're full of or not. I'm tired of all these 'think tanks' like Cato, Heritage, etc. that know the solution to everything, criticize from their cozy soapbox, but don't feel like moving a finger to actually do the they preach.
Which re ed nickname is lamer? Repug or demonrat? I gotta go with demonrat, although they're both ultra-lame.
I don't live in America (but it beats the out of our politics). I remember hearing Obama say something like people making over 200k will be taxed and the rest along with small businesses wont be. Was there something like that?
tbh I am just interested in hearing what Obama promised and what has he tried to accomplish so far. I would go read about it on net but almost every site is stating it with some kind of bias and I am not proficient in politics to differentiate them yet without additional info
so how much has obama admin spent already? compared to bush admin?
The GOP does no better than the Dems on this one.Isn’t it past time you identified the programs you’d cut?
Talking in a broad way about smaller government is tactically preferable to getting real particular about whose neck you think is (or should be)
on the chopping block in an election year. I get that.
But it blows me away that tax cuts are now floated without any discussion at all of how they will be paid for, by the nominal conservatives in the debate.
These are not tax cuts - it's just keeping the current rates in place. And - you don't PAY for tax cuts! It just means the government needs to keep the spending levels the same because revenues will be pretty much the same.
It's like you being mad at your boss because you wanted to buy a bigger house and he didn't give you the pay raise you wanted.
I want to see what the GOP is going cut... why don't we ever hear that?
"It just means the government needs to keep the spending levels the same because revenues will be pretty much the same."
which means keeping the Repug tax cuts in place means the deficit will be nearly $4T worse in the next 10 years.
To reduce spending to match the Repug deficit, which govt programs do you want to cut? Be very specific, as if you were head of the Congressional finance/budget committee.
Anyone over 250K income will be taxed for income over that amount according to Pre-Bush Tax Cut numbers (Making 251K, you get old tax rates on that 1K). Everyone making under 250K have their taxes applied to Bush's rates which are set to expire. If the Tax Cuts expire, everyone's taxes go back to the rates of the Clinton years. So basically, Obama wants to raise taxes on the richest people's income over 250K, but the Republicans argue that it discourages people from the American dream...which looking at the innovation, markets and confidence in the economy is out of reach anyway (at least in the way we've come to identify the American dream). HOWEVER, what the Republicans don't realize is that people care more about putting food on the table and a roof over their heads than whether or not people making 250K get tax cuts - although the Republicans act like they are related, thus people get confused.
Obama has been President during one of the most gutless, pussy-fied assemblies of Congress ever, but he's managed to navigate around ending combat operations in Iraq...that's pretty much all I think has happened.
Kick it up a notch President Obama!! Yes you can!!
Listen to Bill!!
What if we just eliminated personal income tax altogether…Stop punishing achievement…
Thanks for the reply, this along with the websites make more sense now.
So he has to wait for the previous tax cuts to expire to instate new ones ? I thought he could pass it right away or does the minority party have to agree as well?
I got into an argument with my friend the other day about where are obama's tax cuts since he has been in office for nearly 2 years (not sure if they are better or not, net just says middle class get the cuts while the 2% don't) and I didn't know what to make of it
yes, the Repug toxic chickens hatched in the Reign of Error are still coming home to roost. 2 unfunded wars, unregulated/unenforced corps, unfunded tax cuts, mismanged econony, etc, etc.
Why do you expect any Congress to fix "things"?
Isn't the free market capable of stability and self-repair?
The Repugs say in their pledege they are listening to the people. What do you tell the Repugs they should do if/when they get control of Congress?
What has Dem Congress done wrong that make "things worse"?
Good Post.
Is Obama proposing new tax cuts or using clinton's tax cuts or using part of bush's tax cuts for under 250k?
I think he's wanting to keep current tax rates for up to 250k. Which is what he calls a tax cut.
Clinton had 8 good years or so of growth at the pre-tax cut tax rate, and a projected budget surplus when he left office...a few years later with a GOP Congress and a GOP president.....government grew at a record pace, plus the Bush tax cuts, plus a global war on our kid's credit card, plus the largest unfunded expansion en lement program in modern history and the GOP deficit chicken-hawks blame Obama for running up the debt - and people, yes you ignorant independents, are buying this crap....
He was lucky, and this was not by his doing. There never was a surplus when you include the interest on the debt, and added expenditures outside the budget. What you speak of is strictly budgeted spending vs. revenue. We can all make a budget that includes saving money, but that doesn't mean we follow it.
When will you lib s learn the facts and stop espousing lies? The numbers don't lie. If this was true as you idiots portray, then the national debt would have declined. not increased during those few years of mythical surplus.
The later years, the whole tech market was on steroids because of the Y2K scare, and it crashed rather hard after the Y2K fear was over. then president Bush had 9/11 also.
You should know about 'budgeted spending' and 'keeping things off the books', the Bush administration did that for the costs of both wars and tons of other things for the entirety of its existence....the fact remains that Clinton balance the budget, the last President to do so in modern times, and he did it with no personal tax cuts...He was lucky, and this was not by his doing. There never was a surplus when you include the interest on the debt, and added expenditures outside the budget. What you speak of is strictly budgeted spending vs. revenue. We can all make a budget that includes saving money, but that doesn't mean we follow it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
