Page 8 of 15 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 144

Thread: Senate says 'no' to federal debt commission Obama endorsed

  1. #71
    Student pugetsoundwa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    02-10-10 @ 01:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    252

    Re: Senate says 'no' to federal debt commission Obama endorsed

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    GB, you are a hack. You're also economically impaired. You claim you are enlightened, yet you ignore that lower taxes generates higher revenues. Higher taxes may give a short term boost but are long term detrimental.
    Even reagan had 50% tax for high earners thru most of his terms. As far as low taxes..umm we do have low taxes when compared to most of our past rates. 39.6% is still lower then it was save only a few yrs here and there. Taxes aren't really a issue. Living within ones means is the trouble. Be it a Govt or a person...

  2. #72
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Senate says 'no' to federal debt commission Obama endorsed

    gosh, i wonder why FORTY PERCENT of the party in power voted to KILL their president's top domestic priority coming out of MA

    what, oh what, could the trouble(s) be?

  3. #73
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,257

    Re: Senate says 'no' to federal debt commission Obama endorsed

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    GB, you are a hack.
    Really? How so? Is it because i call out those who are so entrenched in ideology, that they fail to consider the circumstances of the situation?

    You're also economically impaired.
    Coming from you, i will take that as a compliment.... You do not even understand the supply side underpinnings of which you claim to represent.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  4. #74
    Student pugetsoundwa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    02-10-10 @ 01:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    252

    Re: Senate says 'no' to federal debt commission Obama endorsed

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post


    You do not even understand the supply side underpinnings of which you claim to represent.
    Nor do Repubs understand the failure of Supplyside economics. DEMAND drives a economy not SUPPLY.

  5. #75
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,257

    Re: Senate says 'no' to federal debt commission Obama endorsed

    Quote Originally Posted by pugetsoundwa View Post
    Nor do Repubs understand the failure of Supplyside economics. DEMAND drives a economy not SUPPLY.
    It is not as though supply side economics have failed; policy makers with a one track mind who attempt to have a one size fits all approach to economic policy are the ones who have failed. In certain situations, supply side economic policy can be a powerful tool in combating stagflation scenarios or instances where demand pull inflation is a reality.

    Either way, mrv is out of his league.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  6. #76
    Sage
    Dav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    04-16-16 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,539

    Re: Senate says 'no' to federal debt commission Obama endorsed

    See who voted which way here: 111th Congress, 2nd session, Senate vote 5 | Congressional votes database | washingtonpost.com


    What's interesting is that how people voted was pretty much unrelated to both party and ideology. And I have yet to see how Republicans who voted against this justified their vote; nobody seems to care about that minor detail.

  7. #77
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: Senate says 'no' to federal debt commission Obama endorsed

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    I think his point is that neither extreme works, so we have to reach a middleground that balances individual interests with the need for revenue and economic growth.

    Neither a 99% tax nor a 1% tax would raise much money.
    I believe I stated earlier that there IS a point of "too low" taxes. We're just not anywhere near that.
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



  8. #78
    pirate lover
    liblady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    St Thomas, VI
    Last Seen
    03-14-16 @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    16,165
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Senate says 'no' to federal debt commission Obama endorsed

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    Well, I guess that this proves that Republicans love deficits. After all, that's what this was about, wasn't it? A pro-deficit versus anti-deficit vote? Because it's all about politics... and voting in favor of deficits is great politics

    As has already been mentioned, votes correlated more closely with time in office than with party. There's more to this than the surface, as is almost always the case. But don't let that stop you from bashing the Republicans as the pro-deficit party....
    i'm bashing no one. both dems and reps voted against this.

    Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:

    These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.


  9. #79
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Senate says 'no' to federal debt commission Obama endorsed

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    I believe I stated earlier that there IS a point of "too low" taxes. We're just not anywhere near that.
    Then how is Sweden able to afford such an expansive social safety net, whereas we are not? It's not through higher levels of deficit spending (Sweden's debt-to-GDP ratio is about the same as ours) and it's certainly not through lower taxes.

    I've always wondered why conservatives are so adamantly opposed to social programs if they truly believe that tax cuts generate more tax revenue than they cost. If this something-for-nothing mentality was actually true, Republicans could just cut taxes to pay for all of the new spending that the Democrats want. Everyone would be happy.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 01-27-10 at 06:43 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  10. #80
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:53 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,328
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Senate says 'no' to federal debt commission Obama endorsed

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    When in control: Reagan's non-military spending cuts the largest in history; surplus of the 90s.

    When not in control: Voted near-unanimously against stimulus, health care bill, etc.

    Also, a slim majority voted against this particular method of reducing the deficit.


    I'm not saying Republicans are always fiscally responsible. But to say that they are entirely fiscally un-responsible is just as untrue.
    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    I don't think that the average conservative on DP is a good reflection of the average Republican in the Senate.



    Completely true, though I don't think that necessarily proves they would be opposed to it now.

    As a side note, if you look at the annual growth in "discretionary" spending under Bush, it's not particularly large once you exclude Homeland Security/Defense/Veterans - just 3.1%.

    http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy...get/tables.pdf (page 5)



    Which would horrify the people who came up with SS in the first place. SS was designed as a safety net form of insurance for the destitute, not as a sole or critical source of income. Unless we fix the way people treat the program, we're screwed.
    You both make the same mistake. Reagan and Bush where good, if you only look at the numbers that are good and don't look at the numbers where spending actually grew. That's a stupid way of doing it though. You have to look at the whole package, and both grew the deficit at rapid paces.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

Page 8 of 15 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •