CBS News Poll: Most Oppose GOP Tax Plan

TurtleDude said:

your understanding of the Constitution is rather paltry. The Constitution created a LIMITED federal government that only had the POWERS specifically DELEGATED to it.

The rest of your rant is shrouded in ignorance. The senate MAJORITY leader is Harry Reid. Today and next week and next year (short of him resigning or dying or his own party firing him). That you don't even understand that the Dems retained the senate is rather telling

Click to expand...

Noticed that liberals never seem to address the Constitution and the FACT that our Founders created a LIMITED Federal govt. Doesn't seem that Kev or haymarket have read it or if they have they ignored it.

Conservative said:

Noticed that liberals never seem to address the Constitution and the FACT that our Founders created a LIMITED Federal govt. Doesn't seem that Kev or haymarket have read it or if they have they ignored it.

Click to expand...

Conservative

I believe in Constitutionally limited government. Always have. Always will. And having taught the Constitution several times each semester for over thirty years, you can take it to the bank that I do not ignore it.

Does it somehow elevate you in your own mind for you to intentionally disparage and outright lie about people simply because they disagree with you?

Conservative said:

The Federal Govt. has facilities in those states, you wouldn't expect them to default on their obligations, would you? The Federal Govt. purchases products from the states, you wouldn't expect them to default on those purchases would you?

But to the bigger issue, if the states are sending dollars to the Federal Govt. and receiving less than a dollar back how did the states create the debt? Looks like the govt. made a profit on the dollars sent to the govt? You do realize that if a state sends a dollar to the Federal govt and gets .94 cents back that means the Govt. made .06 on the deal. For doing what?

Click to expand...

Yeah, I do understand what it means. .73 from a dollar is .27. That's why I put it in my post. Didn't look at the link, did ya? Anyway, if you don't know the basics of what the feds do (from infrastructure to matching state funds for vital services (transportation, for one) and the various agencies that give you clean air and water, safe food and drugs, good highways and a myriad of other services, then this is pointless. That .27 cents also goes to conservative states that can't hold their own. Look at the map. It's why I put it there. Let's take a quick review, okay? These are the states robbing the treasury. See if you can tell me the common denominator:

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Florida
Hawaii
Idaho
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Mexico
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
West Virginia
Wyoming

Now, notice anything about the blue state/red state ratio when it comes to the federal government saving their a**es? More proof your policies do nothing but create deficits, from Reagan to Bush to Bush to state and local governments controlled by cons. The proof is in the pudding, no? Why are you ignoring history and the facts in front of you? Con economic policy has proven to be a dismal failure.

haymarket said:

Conservative

I believe in Constitutionally limited government. Always have. Always will. And having taught the Constitution several times each semester for over thirty years, you can take it to the bank that I do not ignore it.

Does it somehow elevate you in your own mind for you to intentionally disparage and outright lie about people simply because they disagree with you?

Click to expand...

What exactly have I lied about?

Want Scalia's opinion? I can give you that, also. He's about as hard core as one can get, no?

"To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, "one Nation, indivisible.") Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit." Want the link?

Conservative said:

What exactly have I lied about?

Click to expand...

You have said a few times now that I do not know the subject I have taught. You talk out of your posterior about things you know nothing about. You lie about me and not believing in limited government. You lie about me not understanding the role of government. You make statements that have no basis in fact simply because you are trying to say false things bout people simply because they do not see things the way that you do.

Kev316 said:

Want Scalia's opinion? I can give you that, also. He's about as hard core as one can get, no?

"To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, "one Nation, indivisible.") Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit." Want the link?

Click to expand...

So you think states rights is about seceding? Our Founders didn't, what has changed? The point remains, our Founders and no one here has proven differently believed and created a small, limited Central govt. and stated so in the Constitution. What I find interesting is how far too many take PROMOTE Domestic Welfare to mean PROVIDE Domestic welfare which has generated the welfare state we have today.

Conservative said:

Noticed that liberals never seem to address the Constitution and the FACT that our Founders created a LIMITED Federal govt. Doesn't seem that Kev or haymarket have read it or if they have they ignored it.

Click to expand...

OK, which part of the government do you want to cut back, military, people, departments, or companies with government contracts?

Forget SS, Medicare and FICA. They're not funded by tax payers.

ricksfolly

ricksfolly said:

OK, which part of the government do you want to cut back, military, people, departments, or companies with government contracts?

Forget SS, Medicare and FICA. They're not funded by tax payers.

ricksfolly

Click to expand...

Anything to do with social and personal responsibilities, that rests with the States and local govt.

Forget SS, Medicare and FICA. They're not funded by tax payers.

Click to expand...

You are kidding, right, SS, Medicare are funded by FICA thus funded by the taxpayers.

I gave you a list of the items funded by the Federal Govt. why did you ignore it? There are billions that can be cut from that list as many of the expenses there are duplicated by the State Government.

Conservative said:

So you think states rights is about seceding? Our Founders didn't, what has changed? The point remains, our Founders and no one here has proven differently believed and created a small, limited Central govt. and stated so in the Constitution. What I find interesting is how far too many take PROMOTE Domestic Welfare to mean PROVIDE Domestic welfare which has generated the welfare state we have today.

Click to expand...

Personally, I feel I know very well what "states rights" means, and it's very very clear from when people pull it out of their pocket what they mean. It doesn't mean states rights at all. It means the right is throwing a tantrum when an election, or policy, doesn't go their way. Race and/or civil rights are usually involved. Why is that? Fear, I think. Fear that somebody's gonna take something away from you or fear you won't get what you want. Nothing more. Let's see, when do you pull this crap? A short history?

Nullification and Civil Disobedience - Civil Rights - Racism - Martin Luther King - States Rights - Interposition - Slavery - Thomas Jefferson - secession | SwiftEconomics.com

"When one thinks of nullification, a few things may come to mind: the nullification crisis of 1832, John Calhoun and slavery, Brown v. Board of Education as well as the struggle for civil rights in the 1960’s. While the nullification crisis of 1832 was a dispute over the “tariff of abomination,” the threat of nullification was also seen a preemptive measure in case the federal government ever tried to interfere with slavery. John Calhoun, who saw slavery as “instead of an evil, a good, a positive good,” was a major supporter of nullification and was instrumental in laying the intellectual groundwork for the secession that lead to the Civil War. There was talk of nullification for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And actual attempts were made after the Supreme Court ruled on Brown v. Board of Education, which persuaded President Eisenhower to call in federal troops to escort the “Little Rock 9” to class in what was formerly an all-white school. Nullification, as with interposition and secession, has without question been used to deny civil rights to minorities in this country."

"It’s thereby not surprising that Princeton professor Sean Wilentz refers to the doctrine of nullification as “the essence of anarchy” and “neo-Confederate dogma” while Chris Mathews described it as the “terms of Jim Crow.” A whole host of other bloggers and political commentators have referred to it as a “code word for racism.” Among most on the left, nullification, and states’ rights in general, are simply an affront to civil rights."

The clue is when it is used, and it's NEVER used when a conservative is in power, even though a president like Reagan grew gov 185% and left a deficit we're still struggling with. Why do folks ignore the long term consequences of their short term policies? Yup, you got wealthy real quick in the eighties then lost it all in S&L scandals and Enron-type debacles. See, in the long run, those policies cost millions of Americans everything they worked their entire lives for. Middle class Americans, all so a very few of you could get wealthy.

Dude, the last administration gave you tax cuts galore and lost 800,000 jobs over 8 years, compared to Clinton's 26 million created and a budget surplus. Yet you still cling to your policies.

Kev316 said:

Personally, I feel I know very well what "states rights" means, and it's very very clear from when people pull it out of their pocket what they mean. It doesn't mean states rights at all. It means the right is throwing a tantrum when an election, or policy, doesn't go their way. Race and/or civil rights are usually involved. Why is that? Fear, I think. Fear that somebody's gonna take something away from you or fear you won't get what you want. Nothing more. Let's see, when do you pull this crap? A short history?

Nullification and Civil Disobedience - Civil Rights - Racism - Martin Luther King - States Rights - Interposition - Slavery - Thomas Jefferson - secession | SwiftEconomics.com

"When one thinks of nullification, a few things may come to mind: the nullification crisis of 1832, John Calhoun and slavery, Brown v. Board of Education as well as the struggle for civil rights in the 1960’s. While the nullification crisis of 1832 was a dispute over the “tariff of abomination,” the threat of nullification was also seen a preemptive measure in case the federal government ever tried to interfere with slavery. John Calhoun, who saw slavery as “instead of an evil, a good, a positive good,” was a major supporter of nullification and was instrumental in laying the intellectual groundwork for the secession that lead to the Civil War. There was talk of nullification for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And actual attempts were made after the Supreme Court ruled on Brown v. Board of Education, which persuaded President Eisenhower to call in federal troops to escort the “Little Rock 9” to class in what was formerly an all-white school. Nullification, as with interposition and secession, has without question been used to deny civil rights to minorities in this country."

"It’s thereby not surprising that Princeton professor Sean Wilentz refers to the doctrine of nullification as “the essence of anarchy” and “neo-Confederate dogma” while Chris Mathews described it as the “terms of Jim Crow.” A whole host of other bloggers and political commentators have referred to it as a “code word for racism.” Among most on the left, nullification, and states’ rights in general, are simply an affront to civil rights."

The clue is when it is used, and it's NEVER used when a conservative is in power, even though a president like Reagan grew gov 185% and left a deficit we're still struggling with. Why do folks ignore the long term consequences of their short term policies? Yup, you got wealthy real quick in the eighties then lost it all in S&L scandals and Enron-type debacles. See, in the long run, those policies cost millions of Americans everything they worked their entire lives for. Middle class Americans, all so a very few of you could get wealthy.

Dude, the last administration gave you tax cuts galore and lost 800,000 jobs over 8 years, compared to Clinton's 26 million created and a budget surplus. Yet you still cling to your policies.

Click to expand...

I don't know where you get your information but it makes you look foolish, GW Bush inherited a recession and left us in a recession and still created 6.5 million jobs. Obama has lost four million in two years still blaming on Bush while ignoring his own policies. the rest of your post is typical of picking and choosing what you want out of history.

Please get an education because the actual non partisan facts paint a different picture.

BLS link, create own chart

Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National)

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

BEA links GDP and Receipts/Expense

U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

You have a very selective view of history, one through a partisan prism. I learned a long time ago to trust but verify any rhetoric from both sides. You seem to ignore actual facts.


Series Id: LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 1980 to 2010

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2000 136559 136598 136701 137270 136630 136940 136531 136662 136893 137088 137322 137614
2001 137778 137612 137783 137299 137092 136873 137071 136241 136846 136392 136238 136047
2002 135701 136438 136177 136126 136539 136415 136413 136705 137302 137008 136521 136426
2003 137417 137482 137434 137633 137544 137790 137474 137549 137609 137984 138424 138411
2004 138472 138542 138453 138680 138852 139174 139556 139573 139487 139732 140231 140125
2005 140245 140385 140654 141254 141609 141714 142026 142434 142401 142548 142499 142752
2006 143142 143444 143765 143794 144108 144370 144229 144631 144797 145292 145477 145914
2007 146032 146043 146368 145686 145952 146079 145926 145685 146193 145885 146483 146173
2008 146421 146165 146173 146306 146023 145768 145515 145187 145021 144677 143907 143188
2009 142221 141687 140854 140902 140438 140038 139817 139433 138768 138242 138381 137792
2010 138333 138641 138905 139455 139420 139119 138960 139250 139391 139061 138888

Conservative said:

Anything to do with social and personal responsibilities, that rests with the States and local govt.



You are kidding, right, SS, Medicare are funded by FICA thus funded by the taxpayers.

I gave you a list of the items funded by the Federal Govt. why did you ignore it? There are billions that can be cut from that list as many of the expenses there are duplicated by the State Government.

Click to expand...

The more I watch, the clearer it becomes that your knowledge is pretty limited. One trick pony: States rights, no taxes, neuter the UNITED States. Without the federal government, you would have no state. None of us would. Do you know how big this nation is? How far it's tentacles reach throughout the world? The commitments we made going back to Barbary Wars? Why we made them? Why we stand up for those who cannot defend themselves in the world?

I don't think you do. Big gaps, man. Big gaps in your knowledge.

Conservative said:

On Christmas Day I am not going to get into this with you as all liberals have to stick together no matter how wrong they are. It truly is a cult.

Click to expand...

Liberal Cult? sounds like an oxy-moron....

Kev316 said:

The more I watch, the clearer it becomes that your knowledge is pretty limited. One trick pony: States rights, no taxes, neuter the UNITED States. Without the federal government, you would have no state. None of us would. Do you know how big this nation is? How far it's tentacles reach throughout the world? The commitments we made going back to Barbary Wars? Why we made them? Why we stand up for those who cannot defend themselves in the world?

I don't think you do. Big gaps, man. Big gaps in your knowledge.

Click to expand...

The more you post the more you show a comprehension problem. You buy what you are told and when the facts get in the way, you ignore them too. No one is calling for zero taxes so unless you can point out where I said that then admit you are wrong. No one is calling for neutering the U.S. other than liberals who are destroying this country by spending it into bankruptcy. States rights are where personal responsibilities lie not the Federal level.

The role of the govt. is to PROVIDE for the Common Defense and to PROMOTE Domestic Welfare. Providing for the defense of this nation is the role of govt. Providing for the welfare of the people rests in the states. You seem to be a legend in your own mind, all that education you received and you learned so very little.

Conservative said:

I don't know where you get your information but it makes you look foolish, GW Bush inherited a recession and left us in a recession and still created 6.5 million jobs. Obama has lost four million in two years still blaming on Bush while ignoring his own policies. the rest of your post is typical of picking and choosing what you want out of history.

Please get an education because the actual non partisan facts paint a different picture.

BLS link, create own chart

Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National)

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

BEA links GDP and Receipts/Expense

U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

You have a very selective view of history, one through a partisan prism. I learned a long time ago to trust but verify any rhetoric from both sides. You seem to ignore actual facts.

Click to expand...

Really? You still think Bush created jobs and the recession started under Clinton. Both are false. The recession began in March 2001 and peaked in November 2001. Over 8 years, Bush policies cost 800,000 jobs and incomes for middle class Americans dropped $2500 annually, while the top 2% grew exponentially.

Stop it. I'm not a punk kid you can bully, I'm not an employee you can fire. I think reeel good, yee ha. Maybe I just need to dumb this down further. I'll work on it.

Kev316 said:

Really? You still think Bush created jobs and the recession started under Clinton. Both are false. The recession began in March 2001 and peaked in November 2001. Over 8 years, Bush policies cost 800,000 jobs and incomes for middle class Americans dropped $2500 annually, while the top 2% grew exponentially.

Stop it. I'm not a punk kid you can bully, I'm not an employee you can fire. I think reeel good, yee ha. Maybe I just need to dumb this down further. I'll work on it.

Click to expand...

Would you please tell me what economic policy Bush had in place when he took office on January 21, 2001? Like far too many you continue to buy what you are told. The fiscal govt. of the U.S. runs from October to September but that seems to escape you.

Also you think posting the same thing over and over again is going to get you a different result? The Bureau of Labor Statistics paints a different picture and I posted the results which of course you ignored. What makes your data more credible?

Please show me that you think

reeel

Click to expand...

good because I haven't seen that.

Conservative said:

The more you post the more you show a comprehension problem. You buy what you are told and when the facts get in the way, you ignore them too. No one is calling for zero taxes so unless you can point out where I said that then admit you are wrong. No one is calling for neutering the U.S. other than liberals who are destroying this country by spending it into bankruptcy. States rights are where personal responsibilities lie not the Federal level.

The role of the govt. is to PROVIDE for the Common Defense and to PROMOTE Domestic Welfare. Providing for the defense of this nation is the role of govt. Providing for the welfare of the people rests in the states. You seem to be a legend in your own mind, all that education you received and you learned so very little.

Click to expand...

Any other motives you'd like to apply? Anyway, states rights is another term for, "Keep them n*ggars and sp*cks away from me and my white bread southern home."

Just stop.

The trouble ain't that people are ignorant: it's that they know so much that ain't so.
- Josh Billings


"

haymarket said:

You have said a few times now that I do not know the subject I have taught. You talk out of your posterior about things you know nothing about. You lie about me and not believing in limited government. You lie about me not understanding the role of government. You make statements that have no basis in fact simply because you are trying to say false things bout people simply because they do not see things the way that you do.

Click to expand...

That isn't a lie, that is my opinion based upon your posts. Instead of calling me a liar I suggest you spend more time proof reading what you post.

Conservative said:

Would you please tell me what economic policy Bush had in place when he took office on January 21, 2001? Like far too many you continue to buy what you are told. The fiscal govt. of the U.S. runs from October to September but that seems to escape you.

Also you think posting the same thing over and over again is going to get you a different result? The Bureau of Labor Statistics paints a different picture and I posted the results which of course you ignored. What makes your data more credible?

Please show me that you think good because I haven't seen that.

Click to expand...

When did he pass the tax cuts and what happened immediately afterwards? Jesus.

Kev316 said:

Any other motives you'd like to apply? Anyway, states rights is another term for, "Keep them n*ggars and sp*cks away from me and my white bread southern home."

Just stop.

The trouble ain't that people are ignorant: it's that they know so much that ain't so.
- Josh Billings


"

Click to expand...

You really have lost it, grew up in the Midwest, moved to TX 18 years ago so you don't have a clue.

Conservative said:

You really have lost it, grew up in the Midwest, moved to TX 18 years ago so you don't have a clue.

Click to expand...

Oh, I think I do. But that is MY opinion.

Kev316 said:

When did he pass the tax cuts and what happened immediately afterwards? Jesus. What is wrong with you?

Click to expand...

The first tax cuts were rebate checks passed in June 2001 so in case you don't know the calender that is after March. Then the withholding rates dropped in July 2003 AFTER the GOP Took Congress and actually cut taxes. Facts have a funny way of getting in the way of your opinions. As I posted the economy for the 8 years of Bush created 6.5 million jobs and that is after the 2 million jobs lost in 2008. Obama has lost 4 million jobs since signing his stimulus. Maybe that didn't make the Chicago papers.

Kev316 said:

When did he pass the tax cuts and what happened immediately afterwards? Jesus.

Click to expand...

are you referring to Iraq? seems to me if we want to go to war, taxes should be raised to pay for it, in advance....

Conservative said:

You really have lost it, grew up in the Midwest, moved to TX 18 years ago so you don't have a clue.

Click to expand...

Recession was Bush's fault - Chicago Tribune

April 23, 2010|By Tribune staff reporter

Letter writer Donald Froelich claims President George W. Bush inherited a recession. This is simply not true. The textbook definition of a recession, universally agreed to by economists, is two consecutive quarters of negative growth in the Gross Domestic Product. That didn't happen until AFTER Bush took office.

As a candidate, Bush told us the economy was so strong that the rich deserved a tax cut. After taking office, he said the economy was weak and a tax cut would fix it. Instead of reducing spending to pay for his tax cuts, Bush increased spending and gave us two unfunded wars. He also initiated the bailouts of Wall Street that so many conservatives are upset about.

Bush's term began with a recession followed by meager economic growth that ended in another recession, while turning a record surplus into a massive debt--and no amount of Republican spin can change that.

UtahBill said:

are you referring to Iraq? seems to me if we want to go to war, taxes should be raised to pay for it, in advance....

Click to expand...

Nope.

April 23, 2010|By Tribune staff reporter

Letter writer Donald Froelich claims President George W. Bush inherited a recession. This is simply not true. The textbook definition of a recession, universally agreed to by economists, is two consecutive quarters of negative growth in the Gross Domestic Product. That didn't happen until AFTER Bush took office.

As a candidate, Bush told us the economy was so strong that the rich deserved a tax cut. After taking office, he said the economy was weak and a tax cut would fix it. Instead of reducing spending to pay for his tax cuts, Bush increased spending and gave us two unfunded wars. He also initiated the bailouts of Wall Street that so many conservatives are upset about.

Bush's term began with a recession followed by meager economic growth that ended in another recession, while turning a record surplus into a massive debt--and no amount of Republican spin can change that.