More Democrats break with Obama on tax cuts

Boo Radley · Oct 21, 2010

American said:
Since you brought it up, could you provide some links to that information?

You don't remember Lebenon? Read up on it. Do the same with welfare motels.

In Lebanon, the Marines retreated to bunkers and trench fortifications. Casualties continued. During his January 1984 State of the Union address, Reagan asserted that America’s continued military presence in Lebanon was “central to our credibility on a global scale.” Two weeks later he ordered the Marines out.

It has become axiomatic that the main lesson of the 1983 Beirut debacle was about the danger of appeasing terrorists. This message was underscored by the Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, who pointed to the hasty withdrawal as proof that the Americans were “paper tigers.” “The Marines fled after two explosions,” he boasted.

AmericanHeritage.com / Death in Beirut: What Were the Lessons, and Did We Learn Them?

And that is without the entire arms for hostiages stuff.

Welfare hotels:

The new social contract: America's ... - Google Books

Presidential Silences and Symbols: Racial Politics and Welfare Retrenchment during the Reagan Presidency

Conservative · Oct 21, 2010

Boo Radley said:
You don't remember Lebenon? Read up on it. Do the same with welfare motels.

In Lebanon, the Marines retreated to bunkers and trench fortifications. Casualties continued. During his January 1984 State of the Union address, Reagan asserted that America’s continued military presence in Lebanon was “central to our credibility on a global scale.” Two weeks later he ordered the Marines out.

It has become axiomatic that the main lesson of the 1983 Beirut debacle was about the danger of appeasing terrorists. This message was underscored by the Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, who pointed to the hasty withdrawal as proof that the Americans were “paper tigers.” “The Marines fled after two explosions,” he boasted.

AmericanHeritage.com / Death in Beirut: What Were the Lessons, and Did We Learn Them?

And that is without the entire arms for hostiages stuff.

Welfare hotels:

The new social contract: America's ... - Google Books

Presidential Silences and Symbols: Racial Politics and Welfare Retrenchment during the Reagan Presidency

What does any of this have to do with "More Democrats break with Obama on Tax cuts?"

I really don't blame you from trying to divert from the disaster that Obama is but try to stay on topic.

Boo Radley · Oct 21, 2010

Conservative said:
What does any of this have to do with "More Democrats break with Obama on Tax cuts?"

I really don't blame you from trying to divert from the disaster that Obama is but try to stay on topic.

I answered a question. perhaps you you ask him.

Conservative · Oct 21, 2010

Boo Radley said:
I answered a question. perhaps you you ask him.

Actually I am asking you, what problem do you have with the American people keeping more of what they earn and why are you diverting from the Obama failures?

Boo Radley · Oct 21, 2010

Conservative said:
Actually I am asking you, what problem do you have with the American people keeping more of what they earn and why are you diverting from the Obama failures?

It's called fiscal responsibility (I've answered this before). And I haven't divirted from anything jr.

Conservative · Oct 21, 2010

Boo Radley said:
It's called fiscal responsibility (I've answered this before). And I haven't divirted from anything jr.

LOL, so your idea of fiscal responsibility at the Federal Level is taking money from the private sector and those that produce? Fiscal Responsibility means controlling spending and matching spending with revenue received, not running deficits.

Interesting that liberal definition of fiscal responsibility only focuses on what others pay in taxes.

Boo Radley · Oct 21, 2010

Conservative said:
LOL, so your idea of fiscal responsibility at the Federal Level is taking money from the private sector and those that produce? Fiscal Responsibility means controlling spending and matching spending with revenue received, not running deficits.

Interesting that liberal definition of fiscal responsibility only focuses on what others pay in taxes.

We pay taxes to pay for services. That's how it works. You can't say I want my medicare and not pay taxes. Yo9u can't say I want us to fight two needless wars and not be taxed. That's how it works.

Conservative · Oct 21, 2010

Boo Radley said:
We pay taxes to pay for services. That's how it works. You can't say I want my medicare and not pay taxes. Yo9u can't say I want us to fight two needless wars and not be taxed. That's how it works.

47% of the people in this country don't pay Federal Income taxes.

I have no problem with use taxes but I do have a problem with class warfare which liberals promote. You seem to have a problem understanding exactly what taxes you pay and for what. We had a 3.8 trillion dollar budget last year and the war in Iraq/Afghanistan cost a small percentage of that yet the deficit was 1.3 trillion dollars so you can divert, distort, and hide from reality but the facts trump your feelings. The Iraq/Afghanistan war didn't cost 1.3 trillion last year nor did those wars cause 16 million Americans from being unemployed. Your President created both the deficit and the increase in unemployment.

Boo Radley · Oct 21, 2010

Conservative said:
47% of the people in this country don't pay Federal Income taxes.

I have no problem with use taxes but I do have a problem with class warfare which liberals promote. You seem to have a problem understanding exactly what taxes you pay and for what. We had a 3.8 trillion dollar budget last year and the war in Iraq/Afghanistan cost a small percentage of that yet the deficit was 1.3 trillion dollars so you can divert, distort, and hide from reality but the facts trump your feelings. The Iraq/Afghanistan war didn't cost 1.3 trillion last year nor did those wars cause 16 million Americans from being unemployed. Your President created both the deficit and the increase in unemployment.

Those who don't pay don't have much to pay with. Again, I have no problem with this. Nor with a progressive tax. I pay more than some and some pay more than me. I see no problem with this.

And no, the deficit has been here a long time:

The United States has had public debt since its inception. Debts incurred during the American Revolutionary War and under the Articles of Confederation led to the first yearly reported value of $75,463,476.52 on January 1, 1791. Over the following 45 years, the debt grew, briefly contracted to zero on January 8, 1835 under President Andrew Jackson but then quickly grew into the millions again.[7]

The first dramatic growth spurt of the debt occurred because of the Civil War. The debt was just $65 million in 1860, but passed $1 billion in 1863 and had reached $2.7 billion following the war. The debt slowly fluctuated for the rest of the century, finally growing steadily in the 1910s and early 1920s to roughly $22 billion as the country paid for involvement in World War I.[7]

The buildup and involvement in World War II plus social programs during the F.D. Roosevelt and Truman presidencies in the 1930s and '40s caused a sixteenfold increase in the gross debt from $16 billion in 1930 to $260 billion in 1950.

After this period, the growth of the gross debt closely matched the rate of inflation where it tripled in size from $260 billion in 1950 to around $909 billion in 1980. Gross debt in nominal dollars quadrupled during the Reagan and Bush presidencies from 1980 to 1992. The Public debt quintupled in nominal terms.

In nominal dollars the public debt rose and then fell between 1992 and 2000 from $3T in 1992 to $3.4T in 2000. During the administration of President George W. Bush, the gross debt increased from $5.6 trillion in January 2001 to $10.7 trillion by December 2008,[8] rising from 58% of GDP to 70.2% of GDP. During March 2009, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that gross debt will rise from 70.2% of GDP in 2008 to 100.6% in 2012.

United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Conservative · Oct 21, 2010

Boo Radley said:
Those who don't pay don't have much to pay with. Again, I have no problem with this. Nor with a progressive tax. I pay more than some and some pay more than me. I see no problem with this.

And no, the deficit has been here a long time:

The United States has had public debt since its inception. Debts incurred during the American Revolutionary War and under the Articles of Confederation led to the first yearly reported value of $75,463,476.52 on January 1, 1791. Over the following 45 years, the debt grew, briefly contracted to zero on January 8, 1835 under President Andrew Jackson but then quickly grew into the millions again.[7]

The first dramatic growth spurt of the debt occurred because of the Civil War. The debt was just $65 million in 1860, but passed $1 billion in 1863 and had reached $2.7 billion following the war. The debt slowly fluctuated for the rest of the century, finally growing steadily in the 1910s and early 1920s to roughly $22 billion as the country paid for involvement in World War I.[7]

The buildup and involvement in World War II plus social programs during the F.D. Roosevelt and Truman presidencies in the 1930s and '40s caused a sixteenfold increase in the gross debt from $16 billion in 1930 to $260 billion in 1950.

After this period, the growth of the gross debt closely matched the rate of inflation where it tripled in size from $260 billion in 1950 to around $909 billion in 1980. Gross debt in nominal dollars quadrupled during the Reagan and Bush presidencies from 1980 to 1992. The Public debt quintupled in nominal terms.

In nominal dollars the public debt rose and then fell between 1992 and 2000 from $3T in 1992 to $3.4T in 2000. During the administration of President George W. Bush, the gross debt increased from $5.6 trillion in January 2001 to $10.7 trillion by December 2008,[8] rising from 58% of GDP to 70.2% of GDP. During March 2009, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that gross debt will rise from 70.2% of GDP in 2008 to 100.6% in 2012.

United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please, someone wake me when Boo actually addresses the issues raised and the thread topic. Does anyone here actually understand the role of the Federal Govt. and how Federal taxes affect state revenue?

Obama has added 3 trillion dollars to the debt in 2 years and what do we get here, more Reagan and Bush bashing? That is nothing more than diversion. Can someone here tell me where the repayment of TARP loans went? Also note that the debt in 2012, by Boo's own numbers goes to over 100% in 2012 and the question is why? Why would anyone support that massive growth in the size of the Federal Govt. and further abdicate state and local responsibility?

Boo Radley · Oct 21, 2010

Conservative said:
Please, someone wake me when Boo actually addresses the issues raised and the thread topic. Does anyone here actually understand the role of the Federal Govt. and how Federal taxes affect state revenue?

Obama has added 3 trillion dollars to the debt in 2 years and what do we get here, more Reagan and Bush bashing? That is nothing more than diversion. Can someone here tell me where the repayment of TARP loans went? Also note that the debt in 2012, by Boo's own numbers goes to over 100% in 2012 and the question is why? Why would anyone support that massive growth in the size of the Federal Govt. and further abdicate state and local responsibility?

And he's not alone. I keep telling you, if you're seriously concerned about the debt, call for cutting spending and raising taxes. if you don't, you're not serious.

Conservative · Oct 21, 2010

Boo Radley said:
And he's not alone. I keep telling you, if you're seriously concerned about the debt, call for cutting spending and raising taxes. if you don't, you're not serious.

Why would I support taking more money from the American people something that has always generated more taxpayers? Cutting spending is great but raising taxes will not put 16 million Americans back to work unless of course the American people spend more money when they have less take home pay.

Boo Radley · Oct 21, 2010

Conservative said:
Why would I support taking more money from the American people something that has always generated more taxpayers? Cutting spending is great but raising taxes will not put 16 million Americans back to work unless of course the American people spend more money when they have less take home pay.

I'm sorry, but you've failed to support that claim. We are at this moment under the tax cuts, and we don't have more tax payers. And if you look thoughout history, we clearly see that taxes have played no significant role on the economy or job creation. Again, we've been through this.

Conservative · Oct 21, 2010

Boo Radley said:
I'm sorry, but you've failed to support that claim. We are at this moment under the tax cuts, and we don't have more tax payers. And if you look thoughout history, we clearly see that taxes have played no significant role on the economy or job creation. Again, we've been through this.

We are indeed a moment of tax cuts that are offset by the uncertainty as to the cost of the Obama agenda that will be forthcoming. As an expert business person would you hire more people not knowing what your taxes are going to be January 1, 2011? How much are employers going to have to pay for Obamacare for their employees? Apparently you don't have a problem since you are a wage slave instead of an entreprenuer! 16 million people unemployed, how are you going to put them back to work, raising taxes?

Boo Radley · Oct 21, 2010

Conservative said:
We are indeed a moment of tax cuts that are offset by the uncertainty as to the cost of the Obama agenda that will be forthcoming. As an expert business person would you hire more people not knowing what your taxes are going to be January 1, 2011? How much are employers going to have to pay for Obamacare for their employees? Apparently you don't have a problem since you are a wage slave instead of an entreprenuer! 16 million people unemployed, how are you going to put them back to work, raising taxes?

While I think you're wrong here is well, you actually support my point, just as you have in the past. Other things effect the economy. Taxes can't override other factors. And there is no evidence that taxes destroy the economy or create jobs and bring about Nirvana.

Gill · Oct 21, 2010

Conservative said:
We are indeed a moment of tax cuts that are offset by the uncertainty as to the cost of the Obama agenda that will be forthcoming. As an expert business person would you hire more people not knowing what your taxes are going to be January 1, 2011? How much are employers going to have to pay for Obamacare for their employees? Apparently you don't have a problem since you are a wage slave instead of an entreprenuer! 16 million people unemployed, how are you going to put them back to work, raising taxes?

These numbskulls can't get that through their heads. The reason unemployment is so high is because there is so much uncertainty. Nobody in business knows how much taxes will be next year, no one knows how much their employee's health care will cost next year. They are scared to death that the idiots in the senate will pass cap and tax like the idiots in the house did. That will raise the cost of business astronomically.

Uncertainty is the problem. Boo keeps bleeting that government can't affect unemployment, yet business after business has said they won't hire until they know what they are facing next year and the year after. GOVERNMENT, specifically the Obama administration and the Dem controled congress is the reason this recession is hanging on.

Conservative · Oct 21, 2010

Boo Radley said:
While I think you're wrong here is well, you actually support my point, just as you have in the past. Other things effect the economy. Taxes can't override other factors. And there is no evidence that taxes destroy the economy or create jobs and bring about Nirvana.

This is a consumer driven economy where consumer spending makes up 2/3rds of GDP and taxes affect consumer spending. Lower taxes=more spending, higher taxes=less spending. Right now the American businesses are making money and stock piling cash, cash that they could use to hire people but aren't because they have no idea what that cost will be. No business wants to hire people not knowing the cost of that employment. Fact remains tax cuts would be benefiting the economy right now if those tax cuts weren't being offset by projected costs of the Obama agenda.

Boo Radley · Oct 21, 2010

Gill said:
These numbskulls can't get that through their heads. The reason unemployment is so high is because there is so much uncertainty. No body in business knows how much taxes will be next year, no one knows how much their employee's health care will cost next year. They are scared to death that the idiots in the senate will pass cap and tax like the idiots in the house did. That will raise the cost of business astronomically.

Uncertainty is the problem. Boo keeps bleeting that government can't affect unemployment, yet business after business has said they won't hire until they know what they are facing next year and the year after. GOVERNMENT, specifically the Obama administration and the Dem controled congress are the reason this recession is hanging on.

Not taxes.

But, I don't really buy that either. It's the cycle. People need to spend. And in order for people to spend, people need to work. And in order for there to be jobs, people need to spend, and in order for people to spend, there needs to be jobs . . . . .

Boo Radley · Oct 21, 2010

Conservative said:
This is a consumer driven economy where consumer spending makes up 2/3rds of GDP and taxes affect consumer spending. Lower taxes=more spending, higher taxes=less spending. Right now the American businesses are making money and stock piling cash, cash that they could use to hire people but aren't because they have no idea what that cost will be. No business wants to hire people not knowing the cost of that employment. Fact remains tax cuts would be benefiting the economy right now if those tax cuts weren't being offset by projected costs of the Obama agenda.

No, they really don't. The wealthy don't spend any less when taxed, or more when not taxed (those numbers have been posted before). They save. And the rest of us spend as often as we can.

Gill · Oct 21, 2010

Boo Radley said:
Not taxes.

But, I don't really buy that either. It's the cycle. People need to spend. And in order for people to spend, people need to work. And in order for there to be jobs, people need to spend, and in order for people to spend, there needs to be jobs . . . . .

People don't spend because they fear they won't have a job tomorrow.

Businesses don't hire because they fear the cost of business will skyrocket under this administration.

If government would provide some stability, this recession would be over in a heartbeat. Like Conservative said, businesses are awash in cash, but are holding onto it for fear that Obama will go on another "spread the wealth" tantrum.

Once we get Republicans in control of the House, business will relax knowing they won't let Obama continue with his idiotic agenda. I predict the economy will start picking up right after the elections, providing the lame ducks don't get crazy. If they do, look out.

Boo Radley · Oct 21, 2010

Gill said:
People don't spend because they fear they won't have a job tomorrow.

Businesses don't hire because they fear the cost of business will skyrocket under this administration.

If government would provide some stability, this recession would be over in a heartbeat. Like Conservative said, businesses are awash in cash, but are holding onto it for fear that Obama will go on another "spread the wealth" tantrum.

Once we get Republicans in control of the House, business will relax knowing they won't let Obama continue with his idiotic agenda. I predict the economy will start picking up right after the elections, providing the lame ducks don't get crazy. If they do, look out.

And the best way to have a job, is to spend.

And they weren't spending before this adminsitration.

And we've had recessions regardless of government, regardless of taxes. government does not control the economy. Government is not the answer.

Conservative · Oct 21, 2010

Boo Radley said:
And the best way to have a job, is to spend.

And they weren't spending before this adminsitration.

And we've had recessions regardless of government, regardless of taxes. government does not control the economy. Government is not the answer.

This country has never seen an Administration like this one and small business which employs 80% of the workers are scared as they should be. This anti business administration is never going to promote the private sector and that is going to keep people unemployed. Imagine those 16 million Americans that are unemployed being gainfully employed and the revenue the govt. would get from those people if they were working?

Conservative · Oct 21, 2010

Boo Radley said:
No, they really don't. The wealthy don't spend any less when taxed, or more when not taxed (those numbers have been posted before). They save. And the rest of us spend as often as we can.

What the wealthy do with their money seems only of concern to the left. What do you think they do with that extra money and how does that hurt the economy regardless of what they do with it? Liberals seem to be jealous of others being as rich as their leadership is, wonder why?

Boo Radley · Oct 21, 2010

Conservative said:
What the wealthy do with their money seems only of concern to the left. What do you think they do with that extra money and how does that hurt the economy regardless of what they do with it? Liberals seem to be jealous of others being as rich as their leadership is, wonder why?

Strawman. I didn't bring it up, you did. you said they spend. They don't. And I have no jealousy. I don't begruge those who pay less or worry about those who pay more. The system is fine.

Gill · Oct 21, 2010

Boo Radley said:
Strawman. I didn't bring it up, you did. you said they spend. They don't. And I have no jealousy. I don't begruge those who pay less or worry about those who pay more. The system is fine.

Do you think they hide it in their pillows ??? Of course not, they invest it so businesses can grow and HIRE people.

Right now, they are hiding it in their pillows because they don't trust Obama and his minions.