Hypocrites in Washington

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So, the author talks about Ryan's budget plan, but how does that compare to the current congressional budget. Oh, right, there is no budget. Apparently, the federal government doesn't need a budget. Silly of Ryan to concoct one. That is so twentieth century. We have evolved. We have "progressed." Do it, whatever it costs. We will eventually figure a way to pay for it. And, by all means, do even more. A few trillion more could not possibley make a difference.

Well, that's not really true. Congress certainly has passed budgetary compromise bills to keep things running. Yes, the process could be much more constructive...

The lack of a formal budget has nothing to do with progressivism, Obama has submitted a budget every year he's been in office.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Obama has submitted a budget every year he's been in office.

-spence

One of which was defeated in the Senate by a vote of 99-0. What does that tell you, Spence? Remember, there are not 99 Republicans in the Senate.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

One of which was defeated in the Senate by a vote of 99-0. What does that tell you, Spence? Remember, there are not 99 Republicans in the Senate.

It tells me is wasn't a serious vote. Obama's budget was put up by Republicans trying to embarrass the president. The budget they proposed didn't even have any policy language in it...

It was a stunt.

-spence

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Yup, throw your hands in the air and say" nothin we can do about it", might as well
just go along with it. Forget the fact that we are broke,they have the sheeple convinced
down the road all will be well and we will all live in Govt. Nirvana.
Move on, nothing to see here.

You like that the majority of current tax payers would pay higher taxes under the Ryan plan? That is your idea of doing something about it? The doing something about it means raising taxes on everyone but those who have incomes over $200000, who would get dramatic cuts. People like Romney, Bill Gates, etc would pay about 1%. Great plan. Talk about sheeple, it is those who believe the garbage they are fed by clowns like Ryan

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by zimmy

You like that the majority of current tax payers would pay higher taxes under the Ryan plan? That is your idea of doing something about it?

As I have said here many times before, to pull this country out of the fire it
will take sacrafice by EVERYONE. Not only tax increases but budget cuts.
How else are you going to pay down a $16 -17 Trillion dollar debt?
Obama is already gutting $716 billion out of Medicare to help pay for Obamacare.
So where does that leave Medicare?
What is Obama's plan for Medicare?

[zimmy]

The "gutting" of 716 billion is favored by both sides and I am not sure it is accurate that it is to help pay for Obamacare. Adjustments in payments to insurers and providers is supposed to cover those costs. I agree, as I have said repeatedly on here over the years, that it is going to take tax increases and cuts in spending to deal with the deficit. What sacrifices are made is the question. Obama would moderately raise taxes on the top 1% to where they were prior to Bush 2. He would maintain middleclass rates. Romney likes the Ryan plan, which would astronomically lower taxes for the extremely wealthy and the middle class would pay more in taxes and more for health care/medicare. The Obama health law pays for itself and reduces the deficit and, as the CBO has pointed out, if Republicans overturn it it will add $100+ billion to the deficit. That is why I find the argument that Romney and Ryan will lower everyones taxes, get people off of food stamps, and "restore" the by the people, for the people to be a farse.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Well, that's not really true. Congress certainly has passed budgetary compromise bills to keep things running. Yes, the process could be much more constructive...

The lack of a formal budget has nothing to do with progressivism, Obama has submitted a budget every year he's been in office.

-spence

Well, yeah, the lack of a formal budget and the need for continuing resolutions have to do with differences on how federal money is spent, and, possibly, on not openly broadcasting how much is spent on what by publishing a budget. Since most of the money is spent on progressive reforms to the federal system, including the large array of executive and independent agencies, social security, medicare, etc. . . . the lack of a formal budget has quite a bit to do with progressivism. The massive size and continued growth of the central government is a direct result of progressivism, as well as is the trillions of dollars required to sustain it

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

The "gutting" of 716 billion is favored by both sides and I am not sure it is accurate that it is to help pay for Obamacare. Adjustments in payments to insurers and providers is supposed to cover those costs. I agree, as I have said repeatedly on here over the years, that it is going to take tax increases and cuts in spending to deal with the deficit. What sacrifices are made is the question. Obama would moderately raise taxes on the top 1% to where they were prior to Bush 2. He would maintain middleclass rates. Romney likes the Ryan plan, which would astronomically lower taxes for the extremely wealthy and the middle class would pay more in taxes and more for health care/medicare. The Obama health law pays for itself and reduces the deficit and, as the CBO has pointed out, if Republicans overturn it it will add $100+ billion to the deficit. That is why I find the argument that Romney and Ryan will lower everyones taxes, get people off of food stamps, and "restore" the by the people, for the people to be a farse.

Your beginning postulates "I am not sure," and "supposed to" are key to the rest of your argument in which you display confidence in various projections. Projections are not facts. They are often innacurate. And different agencies give different projections on plans. Obviously, Ryan and his supporters project outcomes differently. And deficit reductions are important but long term debt reduction by both Obama and Ryan "plans" may raise deficits in the short run to control rising debt in the long run. A problem with all the debt reduction plans is that they are all long term. Few, if any current politicians will be in office when the plans are scheduled to pay off. The "farse" is that those plans will not be changed, ammended, neutered, or discarded over the next twenty years by new administrations. As long as we maintain our expanding course of government of, by, and for government, instead of reversing, gradually, toward government of, by, and for the people, there are not only no garantees that any government "plan" will constantly reduce debt, it is more likely that debt will increase, and only fiscal disaster will force a change.

Yes, the Ryan plan is tweaking around the edges of progressive big government, and it is as likely to suffer degradations of future administrations, but it has a built in "trajectory" or "vector" or a "heading in the right direction" of returning a portion of responsibility and choice to the people. And though it may be unlikely that that direction can be maintained against the allure of the nanny state, if it could, and gradually infiltrate the rest of our big government structure, then true constitutional government, rather than bureaucratic administrative government, could be restored.

That it seems unlikely, does not make it a farse. That you and so manhy others consider it a farse, and even so many more have become dependent on government, makes it unlikely.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

The "gutting" of 716 billion is favored by both sides and I am not sure it is accurate that it is to help pay for Obamacare. Adjustments in payments to insurers and providers is supposed to cover those costs. I agree, as I have said repeatedly on here over the years, that it is going to take tax increases and cuts in spending to deal with the deficit. What sacrifices are made is the question. Obama would moderately raise taxes on the top 1% to where they were prior to Bush 2. He would maintain middleclass rates. Romney likes the Ryan plan, which would astronomically lower taxes for the extremely wealthy and the middle class would pay more in taxes and more for health care/medicare. The Obama health law pays for itself and reduces the deficit and, as the CBO has pointed out, if Republicans overturn it it will add $100+ billion to the deficit. That is why I find the argument that Romney and Ryan will lower everyones taxes, get people off of food stamps, and "restore" the by the people, for the people to be a farse.

amazing that you can roll out so much hyperbole and then refer to anything as a "farce"

you would have been great fun during the Revolution, I suppose you would have deemed that whole "by the people, for the people"...thingy..."to be a farse" then as well...

CBO: Obamacare Will Spend More, Tax More, and Reduce the Deficit Less Than We Previously Thought - Forbes

http://washingtonexaminer.com/cbo-to...rticle/2503013



"The first impact of ObamaCare on the economy is its ever rising price tag. The revised cost estimates for the first full 10 years of ObamaCare is now $2.6 trillion***, almost three times the $900B President Obama had promised it would cost. This soaring cost, however, is only what government will be spending, not the additional costs of compliance borne by the private sector.

The second economic impact of ObamaCare is all the taxes that will need to be raised to pay for this rising cost. There's a list of these new taxes at The Daily Ticker, along with an informative 4 ½-minute video interview of Henry Blodget explaining them (which actually has a bit of humor in it). But it's not only businesses and the investor class that will pay ObamaCare's new taxes; the middle class will also get hit.

The third impact on the economy from ObamaCare is regulation. Bureaucrats have already written 13,000 pages of new regulations, and they're just getting started. This has business in a state of paralysis: what are these unelected, unaccountable regulators going to dump on me next? There's also the issue of whether the regulators know what they're doing.

At Reason, Peter Suderman writes:

As part of a multipart study of the law's regulations, Christopher Conover, a health policy researcher at Duke University's Center for Health Policy and Inequalities Research, and Jerry Ellig, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center, looked at eight of ObamaCare's major regulations and found that "that the regulatory impact analyses (RIAs) for these regulations were seriously incomplete, often omitting significant benefits, costs, or regulatory alternatives." ... The authors also conclude that the analyses were also "more likely to understate the magnitude of costs than to overstate them. All eight regulations appear to have understated the costs. In some cases, costs are understated by billions of dollars. The net effect of this pattern is to further contribute to the bias favoring regulation." Regulators who've decided to pursue certain rules have probably already decided that those rules are a good idea, and end up using the required analyses mostly to justify what they're already planning to do."


****I don't know if this is more or less accurate than any of the other numbers out there but based on the "vector"...it will be accurate at some point at least briefly

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The massive size and continued growth of the central government is a direct result of progressivism, as well as is the trillions of dollars required to sustain it

which is exactly the point and the clear difference in this election....

the Obama Program(vector) is one of massive, permanent and expanding federal power, which happens to be the antithesis of the farcical , but great? .....intent of our founding....this much we know

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I agree, as I have said repeatedly on here over the years, that it is going to take tax increases and cuts in spending to deal with the deficit. What sacrifices are made is the question. Obama would moderately raise taxes on the top 1% to where they were prior to Bush 2. He would maintain middleclass rates.

The kind of sacrifices we need to mend this country have to come from everyone.

You need a strong leader that can lay out the true facts of where we are,what the consquences are, what we need to do, and then unite all our people to be willing to do their share of sacrificing.

It can't be on the backs of one group, it has to be shared by everyone.
This class warfare stuff will never work, except to divide the country and
bring in votes for the party that promotes it.
It's estimated that the increase in taxing the 1% will bring in 80-90 billion,
which would do very little to pay down the trillions we have in debt.

It will take a concerted effort on every citizen's part and a dynamic leader
that can unite the people for the sake of America. While Obama promoted himself
in his campaighn to be such a leader, he has failed.

[Fly Rod]

I pay enough in taxes.....should not have to suffer for miss guided politicians that sit at their desk bouncing a pencil contriving to take my hard earned money.....making policies that exclude them

[Duke41]

wow this republican cool-aid tasted great....oh wait so doesn't the democrats.. Must keep head down, keep working, keep paying for corporate handouts, keep paying for mortage handouts, keep paying for welfare and medicaid handouts, there may not be a social security hand out for me at the end, but thats ok it only hurts when I think.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by scottw

you would have been great fun during the Revolution, I suppose you would have deemed that whole "by the people, for the people"...thingy..."to be a farse" then as well...

Reading comp. an issue Scott? I didn't say it is "for the people" that is a farce, it is the idea that Ryan and Romney raising taxes on the middle class and and cutting nearly all taxes for the super rich is somehow what was envisioned by the founders. Guess that is why the "sheeple" would fall for the Ryan scam.

And for buchie: you don't postulate on anything, because everything you say out is put out as fact, even when it is bs. I guess that is better

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Reading comp. an issue Scott? I didn't say it is "for the people" that is a farce, it is the idea that Ryan and Romney raising taxes on the middle class and and cutting nearly all taxes for the super rich is somehow what was envisioned by the founders. Guess that is why the "sheeple" would fall for the Ryan scam.

The founders did not envision a federal income tax--neither on the middle class nor the super rich. They did not envision a divided nation, made even more so by divisive taxes. Their vision of "We the People" was one People made up of free individuals pursuing their personal happiness, not a class structure which had to be regulated by a central government. That is my OPINION. I don't claim it to be a fact. And it is my opinion, based on evidence and facts which I have presented before in this forum, that progressivism is responsible for those taxes, their massive slice of the nations wealth which allowed the massive growth of the central government.

And for buchie: you don't postulate on anything, because everything you say out is put out as fact, even when it is bs. I guess that is better

Where have I said that I don't? Where have I said that YOU shouldn't? Pointing out your postulation in relation to the rest of your post is not a scolding that you postulate. All of my posts, except when I quote or link to other opinions or facts, ARE OPINIONS. I assume that is obvious, and it doesn't require me to say "in my opinion" before every sentence I write.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Duke41

wow this republican cool-aid tasted great....oh wait so doesn't the democrats.. Must keep head down, keep working, keep paying for corporate handouts, keep paying for mortage handouts, keep paying for welfare and medicaid handouts, there may not be a social security hand out for me at the end, but thats ok it only hurts when I think.

You have hit on the obvious (in my opinion). What, apparently, is not obvious even though it stares us in the face (in my opinion), is that the same entity which pays for or enforces the corparate "handouts" and mortage handouts, is the entity that keeps paying for welfare and medicaid handouts--regardless of Republican or Democrat cool aids (in my opinion). That you have so little to say about it is, IMHO (do I have to constantly say that?--I think not) because the power to make those handouts or decide which handouts will be given, was unconsitutionally taken from your local or State government by Progressive politicians and judges. It is those local governments, as constitutionally intended, in which you will have a more direct say and those governments that will be more responsive to you than the central government is.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

I pay enough in taxes.....should not have to suffer for miss guided politicians that sit at their desk bouncing a pencil contriving to take my hard earned money.....making policies that exclude them

Agree,but you think it's bad now, wait till the Bush Tax Cuts expire and all of us who pay taxes will pay around 50% of our income between Fed, State, County, Local Sales, etc.
We will be working for the Govt from Jan-July before we see our own dime.
That's why all Govt programs need to be cut to help stop the bleeding,none excluded.

These guys use many of these programs to pay back contributors and to buy votes for their own agenda and are scared to death to do what's really needed.

We need a President that will get out there explain his plan every week if need be, motivate and inspire us to get out of this quick sand. Holding a news conference every 2 months and appearing on Entretainment Tonight to talk about himself,his hobbies etc. is a dis-service to the country.
We all know he's a nice guy,but let's hear how he's really going to bring the Govt back to fiscal responsibility.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It is those local governments, as constitutionally intended, in which you will have a more direct say and those governments that will be more responsive to you than the central government is.

Absolutely. Nothing better than attending a local or county meeting to have your say, have it heard and answered. It's the power of the individual.

My Representative holds monthly teleconference meetings where you can state your opinions and ask questions. Can't beat it for finding out what is really going
on with legislation in Washington.

[Jackbass]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Guess that is why the "sheeple" would fall for the Ryan scam.:

So I guess the sheeple are now the ones that don't fall lock step in with almost every major news network?

The ones who when asked why they are voting for "hope and change" have no good answer. Not saying you are one of them. You may have very valid reasons for voting D. If you want to call every American who votes Romney Ryan sheeple it may be time to look at why people vote Obama Biden as well?

I will vote Romney Ryan and it is simple for me. I work harder than I ever have for far less money than ever before. I am going to be looking at a tax increase in January due to legislation I didn't want. I fear if this administration is given a term without needing to campaign to keep their jobs we will be seeing far more legislation we don't want

I and my business will not survive another four years of the current regime. I kill myself daily to provide for my family I have gone months with out pay to make sure employees get taken care of before me. I pay my bills I have paid my dues. And I get to see people live and die through entitlement our current leadership included. I am middle class and my quality of living is rapidly decreasing. I don't live lavishly. I haven't taken a vacation for three years my customers are happy with me there just is not enough work for everyone. It is what it is. I just know if this regime gets another 4 years it will get worse.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[zimmy]

Sheeple wasn't my word. Obviously it is subjective. Very little has changed for small business under Obama. Many people who speak out against voting for him talk about the fear of what he Will do. The nra is big on that. Makes me want to get their sticker off my truck. Scare tactics. But concern for your business is an understandable reason. I fear for a country where billionaires change the tax system so the middle class gets hammered harder while they pay a tiny percent.how that helps the deficit is beyond me.i also don't get how that makes a better country.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[justplugit]

I feel your pain JB. A family member has been a bank manager for many years and
was able to approve most small business loans under certain criteria on her own.
Now with the new Banking Regulations all small business loans must be sent to a Loan Officer at Headquarters. No matter what the loan history is with the local bank, the business needs to put up %60 colatteral in some form, even their homes, to get a loan.
Not a favorable enviornment to grow a small business or hire additional employees,
and these are many of the people they want to increase taxes on.
Doesn't make sense for economic growth.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Sheeple wasn't my word. Obviously it is subjective. Very little has changed for small business under Obama. this would be a "sheeple" statement
Many people who speak out against voting for him talk about the fear of what he Will do. will do, won't do, has done, hasn't done...pretty normal I think
The nra is big on that. Makes me want to get their sticker off my truck. maybe the gun racks and rebel flag should go too?
Scare tactics. like an ad showing your opponent pushing a woman in a wheelchair off a cliff or a commercial where a guy claims his wife's death was the direct result of your opponent
But concern for your business is an understandable reason.brilliant!....but wait, if nothing has changed, as you say, then the concern is unfounded and the reason illegitimate just like the NRA...no? better scrape the NSBA/NFIB bumper stickers off as well .....we could call it "subjective sheeple fear"
I fear for a country where billionaires change the tax system so the middle class gets hammered harder while they pay a tiny percent. according to Forbes there are 403 US billionaires and about 30 in double digits, do the math and see that even collection of all of their wealth combined wouldn't put a dent in the massive SPENDING PROBLEM
how that helps the deficit is beyond me.i also don't get how that makes a better country.perhaps it's a perception problem
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you are so caught up in straw dogs and talking points that you dismiss, ignore or denounce anything that doesn't jive with your story line....what would "makes a better country" would be getting back on a fiscally responsible path by reducing the burden of government and reviving the principles that made us "better" in the first place.......one of the "sides' that you often speak of has absolutely no intention of doing either

noone wants to "work" for an entity that is so bloated and irresponsible with what is already being provided them.... giving them even more would be an exercise in futility and enablement....see California below...

[Jackbass]

I am simply tired of this notion that Obama and Biden give 2 s@&ts about the American middle
Class. They care about one group of people those they can convince to vote for them. They care about
Middle class to the extent that they want the unions to back them period. Then they care about the poor (American non working families, which is becoming generational) . And they also care about big corporate America. Because that is where they get their campaign money.

Divide and conquer. We are being divided, look at the arguments on a fishing forum for crying out loud, next will come the conquering. I am not talking about enslavement or any Indiana jones type crap. But making people live to their will. Doing as they think we need it has already happened it will again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

“The period which immediately precedes an election, and that during which the election is taking place, must always be considered as a national crisis. ... As the election draws near, the activity of intrigue and the agitation of the populace increase; the citizens are divided into hostile camps, each of which assumes the name of its favorite candidate; the whole nation glows with feverish excitement.” -- Alexis de Tocqueville, “Democracy in America,” 1835

I like Ramesh

I’m Right, You’re Wrong and Other Political Truths
By Ramesh Ponnuru Aug 20, 2012

I can’t stand the people on your side. Not you, particularly. You’re fine. It’s your side that’s ruining everything great about this country.

Your side lies shamelessly. Your leaders just make things up. And you just follow them blindly, like sheep -- like blind sheep. You hang out with people who think just like you, and listen only to shows where you’ll hear your own views repeated. It’s an echo chamber of lies!

That’s how your side wins elections. It whips gullible people into a frenzy about supposed threats to their freedoms and livelihoods, and it deceives everyone else into thinking it’s more moderate than it really is. Once the election is over, though, your side starts pushing its extreme agenda behind the scenes.

When your side wins an election, you make out the president to be some sort of messenger from God. Nothing he does can be wrong. It doesn’t matter how big a hypocrite he is. He can campaign on bringing us together and then do nothing but divide us when he gets in -- but you don’t mind. When our side wins, on the other hand, the president has to be personally trashed and accused of the most monstrous crimes.

Your side stirs up hate against the people on my side. The horrible signs your people hold up at their protests, the venom your spokesmen spew on television: It’s scary. I wonder how you can go through life with all that anger inside you.

Your side is simplistic. You never stop and think things through. That’s how you end up with your ridiculously inconsistent positions on abortion and the death penalty. You even fight against legislation that would make your own life better! How crazy is that?

Honestly, I don’t know whether to be sorry for you or mad. Sometimes I wish we could just free you from these awful leaders and their dumb ideas. Sometimes I wish all the people on your side would just secede and form your own country.

I don’t know if your side even believes in democracy. Your people are willing to do whatever it takes to win. That’s all they care about. They don’t care about how much damage their incivility does to the tone of our national life. It makes me sad.

Your side is willing to exploit tragedies for political gain. When your side’s rhetoric leads to political violence, on the other hand, you start saying how we shouldn’t politicize senseless crimes. Awfully convenient, isn’t it?

Your side’s extremism just grows and grows. Back in the day, people on your side had some sensible views and were willing to work with people on my side. Now your side purges anyone who would dare to do that.

The people on your side constantly whine about how unfairly they are treated. You’re always stoking phony outrage against the political leaders you hate. They are shameless liars, you say. But why should we take demands for honesty seriously when they come from your side? Frankly, anything your side gets is justified payback for all the things you’ve done.

I’m not saying that my side is perfect. Not at all. I complain about the people on my side all the time. They’re wimps. They’re too polite. They let your side get away with murder. And the press lets it happen, too. The people on my side always bring knives to the gunfight.

Maybe the most infuriating thing your side does is pretend that we’re morally equivalent. That’s not true: Your side is full of much worse people. I can’t even stand seeing them on television. No way could I ever watch that supposed news network of yours.

It’s nothing personal. I just hate people like you.

//////////////////////////////////

spending related....and funny...unless you live in Cali.


August 21, 2012
Funding Failure
Aaron Gee

Jerry Brown has a problem. His state continues to spend billions more than it collects in taxes. Outlays for pensioners are starting to bite into day to day government functions. Unable to get higher taxes through his state's legislature Brown is turning to the voters with proposition 30, asking the voters to raise their own taxes. Proposition 30 is being sold to the public as a way to balance the budget and prevent cuts to schools and public safety.

Brown parades around the state preaching that his citizens must accept the tax "for the children". Already the most tax burdened state in the union according to a Pacific Research Institute study, more taxes just continues the status quo. The revenue generated will not do much to fill this years 16 billion dollar deficit, nor go to schools, or public safety. That money will be used to shore up a broken retirement system that is underfunded by hundreds of billions of dollars.

The other sad truth is that much of the income promised by this new tax will never be collected. With nearly 2,000 upper income Californians leaving the state every week the amount of money garnered from Brown's latest "tax the rich" scheme is sure to be much, much, less than forecast. California already has the worst business climate in the United States which makes raising taxes that much more damning. Businesses are leaving the state and with them taxpaying workers.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Obama's budget was put up by Republicans trying to embarrass the president. It was a stunt.

-spence

if the budget was not embarassing...it wouldn't have been much of a stunt wasn't it a 3.6 Trillion dollar budget?

and

President Obama’s economists are nothing if not optimistic. In the fiscal year 2013 presidential budget request, they’ve once again forecast higher future growth than their private-sector peers – about a half-point of gross domestic product growth more, per year, than the 45 economists included in the Philadelphia Fed’s Survey of Professional Forecasters.

The Obama budget, released Monday, forecasts 2.7 percent real GDP growth this year and 3.0 percent next year. Growth increases to 3.6 percent in 2014 and 4.1 percent in 2015. The highest the Philadelphia Fed consensus projections peg growth at 2.3 percent this year and slowly rising to 3.1 percent in 2015

........................................
Jul. 27, 2012, 8:30 AM | 3,842 | 24

UPDATE:

The U.S. economy expanded by 1.5 percent during the second quarter, topping expecations( well, not Obama expectations) for a 1.4 percent gain, new data out of the Bureau of Economic Analysis shows.

Nonetheless, the government figures continued show that the nation's economy is on uneven footing and losing momentum.

During the first three months of the year, the country's gross domestic product expanded by a revised 2.0 percent, moderately faster than the pace seen today.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by scottw

Nonetheless, the government figures continued show that the nation's economy is on uneven footing and losing momentum.

Yes and the CBO just forecast an added 1.1 Trillion to our debt for 2012.
Peanuts, what's another Trillion +.

And that's with 2 wars winding down.

Hello America, are you awake?

[zimmy]

No scott, i dont have a confederate flag on my truck. I do know some tea party guys who do and one has it tattooed on his shoulder.
You also seem to point out as justplugit does that everyone needs to pay more taxes.that doesn't follow your party line.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

You also seem to point out as justplugit does that everyone needs to pay more taxes.that doesn't follow your party line.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

huh?????


Originally Posted by zimmy
"You like that the majority of current tax payers would pay higher taxes under the Ryan plan?"

[RIJIMMY]

The other sad truth is that much of the income promised by this new tax will never be collected. With nearly 2,000 upper income Californians leaving the state every week the amount of money garnered from Brown's latest "tax the rich" scheme is sure to be much, much, less than forecast. California already has the worst business climate in the United States which makes raising taxes that much more damning. Businesses are leaving the state and with them taxpaying workers.

and coming to TX where I pay state tax of, whats that number again, oh yeah, ZERO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[zimmy]

Justplug correctly stated it will take tax raises and spending cuts to cut the deficit. You point out that taxing the rich wont fix it, which points to tax raises on everyone. Ryan plan looks like it lowers taxes on everyone, but actually raises taxes, but only on the middle class. So are people tricked by Ryan or just don't know enough about his plan?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device