23 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by utherpendragonIt just depends on what you take as your baseline scenario. If your baseline scenario is inaction (so no new laws and no renewing of laws) then extending the tax cuts is in fact reducing revenue as compared to the baseline. Opposing your hypothetical sales tax hike is not reducing revenue when compared to the baseline, as in that scenario the taxes wouldn't change either.
its not "reducing" revenue. This sort of logic would say if the GOP opposed a 50% hike on sales tax that would be reducing revenue as well. makes no sense.
If you want to take the historical situation as your reference scenario, which is an equally valid option, then extending tax cuts isn't reducing revenues though.
24 Dec 10
Originally posted by SoothfastDemocrats in Washington do lots of things for which they have no authority. Real Life 101.
Congressmen are members of the legislative branch of government. No one in the executive branch (including the president) has authority over their salaries. Look it up. It's Civics 101.
They want to cap salaries in the private sector, for example.. but on what authority?
25 Dec 10
Originally posted by TheBloopNo they don't, you ding-swizzled dilly-whistle. You purveyor of man-sized cow-pies of misinformation. You stiletto-heeled SS Commandant in fishnet-stockings and spiked brassiere, struttin' up and down the street swinging your riding crop and winkin' at all the handsome sailor boys on shore leave. Hoo-hoo.
They want to cap salaries in the private sector, for example.. but on what authority?
25 Dec 10
Originally posted by TheBloopAlthough I can't be as eloquent as Soothfast, can you provide links to these claims. I think you are referring to banks that took bailout money and the Democrats wanting limit the bonuses, but in case I am wrong, please enlighten us some more.
Democrats in Washington do lots of things for which they have no authority. Real Life 101.
They want to cap salaries in the private sector, for example.. but on what authority?
01 Jan 11
Originally posted by SoothfastIt's probably not a popular thing to refer to Obama's tax deal with Republicans as Stimulus #3. After all, neither side really wants to own up to it do they?
This appears to be one of whodey's less popular psychotropic freak-out threads.
01 Jan 11
Originally posted by TheBloopI do belive that Nixon authored an executive order to freeze salaries. Ahem, a GOP president.
Democrats in Washington do lots of things for which they have no authority. Real Life 101.
They want to cap salaries in the private sector, for example.. but on what authority?
It's so tough for you right wing nuts to look at the truth, much easier to be a Fox puppet.
03 Jan 11
Originally posted by utherpendragonIt is a perverse argument to say that you are getting a pay cut because you are not getting a raise.
its not "reducing" revenue. This sort of logic would say if the GOP opposed a 50% hike on sales tax that would be reducing revenue as well. makes no sense.
But if you have already spent the money on stimuli and bailouts in anticipation of a tax increase, I guess it might feel like reduced revenue.
Time for the government to live within it's means, eh?
10 Jan 11
Originally posted by whodeythey hadn't even taken office as the majority, when you posted your post.
Ok, I can't take it anymore. The Republicans make a campaign promise this last election to knock $100 billion off the deficit.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-10-01/republicans-pledge-to-freeze-spending-poses-deep-budgetary-cuts.html
However, in the recently Republican approved extension of the Bush tax cuts, the mixture of earmarks and reduced r ...[text shortened]... party needs to be held accountable and those who went along with it need to be gone in 2012.
10 Jan 11
Originally posted by spruce112358Russia leads the way!
It is a perverse argument to say that you are getting a pay cut because you are not getting a raise.
But if you have already spent the money on stimuli and bailouts in anticipation of a tax increase, I guess it might feel like reduced revenue.
Time for the government to live within it's means, eh?
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/01/03/report-russian-president-signs-decree-cut-number-federal-officials/?test=latestnews
Report: Russian President Signs Decree to Cut Number of Federal Officials
Published January 03, 2011
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev reportedly signed a decree on Monday reducing the number of federal officials by 20 percent until 2013.
According to the decree by the Kremlin press service, the number of federal officials will be reduced by 5 percent in 2011 and 2012 and by 10 percent in 2013.
The number of federal officials in Russia nearly doubled in the past five years, from roughly 600,000 in 2005 to more than 1.1 million in 2010, RIA Novosti reports.
The move could save up to $1.3 billion from Russia's federal budget, according to the website.
11 Jan 11
Originally posted by zeeblebotRussian Republicans -- lying of course.
Russia leads the way!
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/01/03/report-russian-president-signs-decree-cut-number-federal-officials/?test=latestnews
Report: Russian President Signs Decree to Cut Number of Federal Officials
Published January 03, 2011
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev reportedly signed a decree on Monday reducing the number of feder ...[text shortened]...
The move could save up to $1.3 billion from Russia's federal budget, according to the website.
Where will it all end?