Was Just Listening To Some Conservative Talk Radio.

[mame]

and Limbaugh said, "I think it's a real possibility that Moody's is just trying to help the Democrats" in reference to Moody's putting the U.S. credit rating under "review"...



He also was yelling about how "boehner and the boys should, you know what? They should put a repeal of the Bush tax cuts up for a vote... I mean, it'd fail, right? and then the Republicans can say, 'see we can't raise taxes Obama!' But I mean, that could be risky... I mean, what if it passes?..."

Needless to say I was laughing pretty hard listening to this guy, but it did get me thinking... How much, if any, tax increases should the Republicans be willing to compromise on?

 

[BendBrewer]

He is an uneducated entertainer. What would you expect from someone like that? Rush isn't the problem. The people that think an uneducated entertainer knows anything are the problem.

 

[beardo]

Their should be no tax increase - their should be huge spending and job cuts.

 

[BendBrewer]

The Bush tax cuts are the only major economic changes that caused our current situation. The justification for the cuts was a projected surplus. No surplus? No justification for the cuts.

It's really not that hard to understand even if someone did only have a grade school education. Let's walk it through for the others anyway.

"Hey buddy, I think that we are over charging you so we are going to charge you less"

Bill arrives.

"Hey buddy, I was wrong. We were not over charging you after all. The rate we were charging you was accurate and we will be returning to that rate you happily paid when you paid it. Sorry for the mistake. I got Cs in college and am from Texas."

See?

 

[londonfog]

With Bush I was always confused about how you could have two wars without raising your taxes...instead he gave tax cuts..that makes no sense what so ever

 

[mame]

I'm just really out to see what people think is fair as far as these budget talks go. The Republicans seem to think that even though they know the debt ceiling needs to be raised (I believe it was McConnell who said on TV that "nobody is talking about not raising the debt ceiling") that they can expect something (spending cuts) in exchange for nothing... And they're calling it a compromise... Wouldn't a legitimate compromise involve Democrats conceding spending cuts in exchange for Republicans conceding revenue increases? The Obama plan was less than 20% revenue based... Is that really too much?

3 voters on the poll so far, I know there are more people than that on here!

 

[PeachOibleBoiblePeach#1]

With Bush I was always confused about how you could have two wars without raising your taxes...instead he gave tax cuts..that makes no sense what so ever

Sure it does,,,catering to his votering base,,,"The Rich",,,While now they are bashing the,,,"Mocher's",,,or the majority of people in the US.

 

[BudMcLovin]

Obama has created $5 trillion in debt in 3 years. Thats a spending problem. I though Bush spent a lot of money and he amassed $4 trillion in debt over 8 years. And if I remember correctly the dems used to bitch about Bush spending. But now that Obama is wasting money like he just won the lottery the dems are silent.

Why can't people be honest about the situation the debt problem has been a long time coming. It's caused by both sides kicking the can down the road.

 

[UncleBuck]

Obama has created $5 trillion in debt in 3 years. Thats a spending problem. I though Bush spent a lot of money and he amassed $4 trillion in debt over 8 years. And if I remember correctly the dems used to bitch about Bush spending. But now that Obama is wasting money like he just won the lottery the dems are silent.

Why can't people be honest about the situation the debt problem has been a long time coming. It's caused by both sides kicking the can down the road.

i wonder why people can't be honest about this, either.

the president INHERITED two wars, a ginormous annual deficit, and a failing economy. three years later, progress has been made but the tide has not been turned, and all of a sudden it is ALL his fault?

try the honesty thing.

most of the president's debt is owing to policies of shrub. the only real debt he has added on was the stimulus, to the tune of 1 trillion or so. the rest of the gap is he INHERITED completely and is working to phase out. he did cave by letting the bush tax cuts renew, and the progress in drawing down afghanistan is not happening as quick as anyone wants....but the party of no has not exactly been helpful along the way.

 

[Carne Seca]

Haven't you heard? There were no terrorist attacks on Dubya's watch. Fox News said so. It has to be true.

 

[londonfog]

^^^^^^^I'm waiting to see how Fox and Murdoch work this illegal wiring tapping out...Talk about taking your freedoms..geezzzz

 

[NoDrama]

i wonder why people can't be honest about this, either. three years later, progress has been made but the tide has not been turned

What Progress? Less unemployment? Nope, we have more, Less income gap? nope we have more, Oh i know, less wars, oops nope, he started 2 more. Exactly what progress are you talking about? Just the healthcare bill that might get all shot down? You putting all your hopes and dreams in that and gonna call it a success?

 

[sync0s]

What Progress? Less unemployment? Nope, we have more, Less income gap? nope we have more, Oh i know, less wars, oops nope, he started 2 more. Exactly what progress are you talking about? Just the healthcare bill that might get all shot down? You putting all your hopes and dreams in that and gonna call it a success?

Yep. A health care bill that legally (and unconstitutionally) requires every living being in the US to buy a service.

On a random side note, do the people who accuse Obama of being a muslim realize that it is haraam (basically a sin) for a muslim to buy health insurance? Additionally, was this fact ever considered by his administration, or congress for that matter? How about the people of the US who fight for civil rights but advocate this law without ever considering this fact?

 

[capncash]

Haven't you heard? There were no terrorist attacks on Dubya's watch. Fox News said so. It has to be true.

Can you use something that is actually true to discredit fox news?

 

[mame]

A recent Gallup poll of likely voters on this same issue:

and this one here illustrates house Republican extremism well, based off of the same poll:

 

[BendBrewer]

Obama has created $5 trillion in debt in 3 years. Thats a spending problem. I though Bush spent a lot of money and he amassed $4 trillion in debt over 8 years. And if I remember correctly the dems used to bitch about Bush spending. But now that Obama is wasting money like he just won the lottery the dems are silent.

Why can't people be honest about the situation the debt problem has been a long time coming. It's caused by both sides kicking the can down the road.

Obama has also passed more Spending Cuts than Bush did and he is going to pass more. But you folks don't seem to want to give the guy any credit so why would you start now?

 

[MuyLocoNC]

It's also a fact that it was Obama who passed the exact same Corporate Jet tax breaks that he is trying to use against the Republicans. This guy is a liar and uses fear mongering at the same time he accused the Repubs of the same tactic, neither of which should be any surprise, he is a liberal after all. A flat tax and a balanced budget amendment should be supported by anyone with any common sense.

 

[lowrider2000]

any one who likes or liked Bush is a complete retard............. he ran this country into the ground just cus we got a new president dosent mean that everything gets fixed........i was kinda hoping the another republican would get elected instead of obama so that then you have no one else to blame but yourself......

 

[mame]

It's also a fact that it was Obama who passed the exact same Corporate Jet tax breaks that he is trying to use against the Republicans. This guy is a liar and uses fear mongering at the same time he accused the Repubs of the same tactic, neither of which should be any surprise, he is a liberal after all. A flat tax and a balanced budget amendment should be supported by anyone with any common sense.

Progressive taxation is necessary. I'll quote myself from another thread:

First, the more money you have the easier it is to make money. In a market economy, it is natural that over time the rich will hold more and more of a nations wealth. This is bad economically, as it creates instability due to ever contracting consumer demand. With a progressive tax system and government spending, they work to counter act this effect by effectively and necessarily redistributing wealth. A flat tax by comparison does not counter act the "vacuum effect" the wealthy few have. Also, with a flat income tax the poor would have less revenue to spend on essentials such as food, clothing, shelter, etc while a progressive tax does not deprive a wealthy individual of any of these things.

Politically, the "vacuum effect" the wealthy have causes them to over time gain more and more political power - and the working class loses it's voice as a result. All advanced nations impose a progressive tax to protect against aristocracy or oligarchy; there is nothing wrong with limiting power in politics to ensure fair elections and government that truly represents the people - and not just a few moneyed interests.

The social effects from the vacuum effect are obvious: as the wealthy few own a larger share of a nations revenue, the rest of us get more and more poor. A rise in inequality is associated with a rise in poverty, crime, lack of education, etc.. class mobility becomes more limited because fewer people can afford higher education, etc.

Sure, a flat tax seems more "fair" but the consequences of being fair in this case outweigh the "injustice" of having the wealthy pick up the slack for the poor a bit...

Also, a balanced budget amendment would be disasterous... Every recession government would be forced to cut spending and raise taxes (Austerity, even if the deficit is temporary - caused by losses in revenue and increased social safety net spending in a downturn) instead of embarking on any form of stimulus. As things get worse, government has to continue cutting goods and services, etc.... The whole "balanced budget" amendment is a smokescreen by conservatives and their plan to "choke the beast", economically a balanced budget amendment would be crippling.

Common sense?

 

[MuyLocoNC]

Yeah, we get it...you're a socialist that believes the rich folks don't deserve the money they're earning and the fact they would pay more even at the same percentage eludes you. Wow, in a recession the government would have to cut spending...what a disastrous turn of events. And they wouldn't be able to raise taxes, that's the point, they would have to make do with what they get, just like every level-headed family that isn't swimming in debt.

As is quite evident now, stimulus is a failed concept. Pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into the economy (with untold billions wasted/lost/stolen) only buys you time, it doesn't solve the problem. Bush added 7 trillion in 8 years and Obama has added 4 trillion in 2 years, with plans to add 10 trillion over the next 10 years. Yeah, I think I'll stick with the common sense approach of the extreme right, at least it doesn't assault my BS detector and make me want to puke as your common sense approach does. You live in a fairy tale world and can't even see there has been ZERO recovery, just a momentary spike from the cash this administration and the last administration wasted.

How many times does Paul Krugman have to be proven wrong before you guys stop listening to this idiot?