01 Aug 11
Originally posted by UllrThat fixes nothing. Why isn't the solution making them spend it on things that people care about?
MIGHT is not good enough. I'm not okay with my taxes being raised so that my government can occupy another foreign country. This is the reality we are dealing with. At this point in time, the way to fix our federal government is not to give them access to more revenue.
01 Aug 11
When I made an inquiry regarding a vasectomy, I found out the County Health Department will do free vasectomies for the poor, but well off folks have to pay for it...problem is not too many of the poor take advantage of this. They would rather get women pregnant and abandon them.
01 Aug 11
Originally posted by sh76Sure, only the poor need to make sacrifices. Can't have the upper middle class have their taxes raised to Clintonian levels, can we?
Pell grants and Stafford loans allow anyone who wants to to go to university. Sure they can't go to fancy private schools, but there are still plenty of options out there.
College is not the main point. Between mortgages, local taxes, food, utilities, transportation, etc., $75k is not a lot of money to raise a family, even forgetting about tuition.
I'm no ...[text shortened]... u can. But these are not the people who are so "rich" that we need to increase their taxes.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199203
01 Aug 11
Originally posted by PalynkaBecause about 10 percent of the country doesn't want government spending on anything except the military and freeways. And right now that 10 percent runs the country.
That fixes nothing. Why isn't the solution making them spend it on things that people care about?
01 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderFirst of all, who said anything about the poor making sacrifices? If you mean the spending cuts under the current budget compromise, that is separate from this particular issue of the tax cuts.
Sure, only the poor need to make sacrifices. Can't have the upper middle class have their taxes raised to Clintonian levels, can we?
Second, I'm perfectly happy to see the entire Bush tax cut be repealed. Obviously, Obama is not as "progressive" as I am in this regard.
01 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Progressives voted against the Bush tax cuts in the first place. If conservatives had done so and voted as the progressives did regarding starting the Iraq war, the deficit would be far more manageable now (there'd be no "crisis" at all).
First of all, who said anything about the poor making sacrifices? If you mean the spending cuts under the current budget compromise, that is separate from this particular issue of the tax cuts.
Second, I'm perfectly happy to see the entire Bush tax cut be repealed. Obviously, Obama is not as "progressive" as I am in this regard.
A good first step would be correcting both mistakes.
We both know that Obama hasn't governed as a "progressive" at all.
01 Aug 11
Originally posted by dryhumpThe US government doesn't spend that much compared to other rich Western nations. The problem is they spend their revenues poorly and they collect too little revenue.
I'm with Ullr on this one, you don't stop people from over spending by giving them more money. Until they actually come out with a budget, there shouldn't be anyone asking for more revenue.
01 Aug 11
2 edits
Originally posted by sh76Well lets see. From my understanding they will cut about $7 billion in the first year, but when you consider they deficit spend about $4 billion per day that is only two days of savings.
[b]I think that, though the Tea Party no doubt wanted greater spending cuts, this "compromise" is a clear win for the GOP.
They just raised the debt ceiling $2.5 trillion with no immediate of substantial cuts. You call this a win for the GOP? I call it time for a new party.