RE: No New Tax Pledge

RE: No New Tax Pledge (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

[Poll]

No New Tax Pledge

good for them, ignore the pledge

7% (2)

we're taxed enough, keep saying no

17% (5)

they never should have signed it to begin with

64% (18)

traitors!

3% (1)

he's just pissed because he was named "Grover"

7% (2)

Total Votes : 28

(last vote on : 11/26/2012 4:26:13 AM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

cloudboy -> RE: No New Tax Pledge (11/24/2012 3:27:22 PM)
Here he speaks about it.

tazzygirl -> RE: No New Tax Pledge (11/24/2012 3:40:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl To get a Constitutional Amendment would be like pulling hens teeth. How long before we actually saw it in place? quote: The Supreme Court has stated that ratification must be within "some reasonable time after the proposal." Beginning with the 18th amendment, it has been customary for Congress to set a definite period for ratification. In the case of the 18th, 20th, 21st, and 22nd amendments, the period set was 7 years, but there has been no determination as to just how long a "reasonable time" might extend. Can we go another 7 years? Would I love to see one? Sure. I dont ever expect it to happen. There have been 27. There's absolutely no reason why there can't be 28. Of 11,000 attempts to amend U.S. Constitution, only 27 amendments have passed

LookieNoNookie -> RE: No New Tax Pledge (11/24/2012 3:57:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl To get a Constitutional Amendment would be like pulling hens teeth. How long before we actually saw it in place? quote: The Supreme Court has stated that ratification must be within "some reasonable time after the proposal." Beginning with the 18th amendment, it has been customary for Congress to set a definite period for ratification. In the case of the 18th, 20th, 21st, and 22nd amendments, the period set was 7 years, but there has been no determination as to just how long a "reasonable time" might extend. Can we go another 7 years? Would I love to see one? Sure. I dont ever expect it to happen. There have been 27. There's absolutely no reason why there can't be 28. Of 11,000 attempts to amend U.S. Constitution, only 27 amendments have passed And?

tazzygirl -> RE: No New Tax Pledge (11/24/2012 4:01:58 PM)
LOL Cant figure it out?

JMG05 -> RE: No New Tax Pledge (11/24/2012 4:12:55 PM)
The problem is that taxes aren't high enough progressively and haven't been for decades. If you look at production and wages before Reagan the difference between worker and CEO's were about 30 times where now it is 400 times higer in many cases. Taxes were high on the rich for a reason and that was to keep everything flowing properly. The rich as well as corporations didn't want the money because it was taxed so it was re-invested in the workforce and the corporation itself. This gave the middle class a living wage which maintained growth in our economy and also lifted those out of poverty into the middle class. Enter Reagan and his buddies that subscribed to Jude Winnski (The two santa claus theory) and he starts slashing taxes as well as not enforcing anti-trust laws which launched us into the republican crap we are stuck in today. The reason the rich appear to be paying more in taxes now has to do with one obvious note of their incomes have risen at much higher rates than the wage earners have as well as something called real bracket creep. They paid a lower proportion in the early eights and before because there was a stronger middle class and less people in poverty...everyone paying their fair share. Now there are credits for those people because it would be a burden for them to pay income tax but they still pay their fair share of overall taxes. Want to raise the tax base for the middle class then pay them more for that is what will create growth and expand the tax base. Higher taxes on the rich (before Reagan) kept middle class wages in line and made for a strong economy. Also notice after taxes on the rich we brought down below 50% we started having bubbles in our economy as well. Bush when running against Reagan called his economic policy voodoo economics and after Reagan enected his stupid fiscal policies realized they were bad since he raised taxes 11 times in his tenure. Also when Bush ran on his read my lips crap he had to raise taxes. Clinton comes in and again raises taxes and balances a budget for four years leaving a surplus.No R's you had nothing to do with it for if you look Clinton passed his budget without a single republican vote, so it was the dems that gave us balanced budgets and surplus not R's in the past century. Middle class wages haven't raised and actually have gone down slightly in the past 30 years so how much can we be squeezed by stupid republican fiscal policy advisors. WE have become more productive and haven't seen a pay increase in years when the top 10% just sees their incomes rise beyond belief. When The Wal-Mart aires own more wealth than the bottom 41% of the nation and only offer poverty wages in their stores its a pretty sad state we live in. http://www.kyklosproductions.com/articles/wages.html

slvemike4u -> RE: No New Tax Pledge (11/24/2012 7:54:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: How long do you think that would last before they decide to play with it Would it not be great if we could get a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget? Once the bill is passed tazzy it will be almost impossible to repeal it. The goal would be to make it hard to amend. I am not saying it will or can be done I am just saying what must be done if we want to be debt free as a nation. Butch Sorry Butch,but that is just un-doable,and thank god for that. The federal government is not your family budget,it can and should have a budget deficit. The fed is responsible for works that benefit future generations....why should they not partake in paying for them Would the interstate highway system have been built had their been such an amendment ,the space program...WW II ?

kdsub -> RE: No New Tax Pledge (11/24/2012 8:56:44 PM)
quote: can and should have a budget deficit I just cannot believe this Mike. A government should be run like my family and business budget. If we want to fund a space program or rebuild the infrastructure then it should be funded in one way or another. I find nothing wrong with paying off debt over time but the repayment must be budgeted and paid within a rigid structure that is balanced against income. If there is not enough income to pay a loan then we don’t build roads until we have a manageable balanced flow of tax income....or tax payers are willing to pay more taxes for the benefits of good roads. We must live, as a country as a business as a family, within our means to pay debt or we don’t take on more liability. Plain and simple. As far as WWIII is concerned we do what we did in the past...war bonds and taxes... but I want to make the funding direct in a designated war tax so we as tax paying citizens know what the war is costing. The debt to pay off bonds would then need to be part of a new balanced budget and would control new and old liabilities until we paid it off. Butch

hlen5 -> RE: No New Tax Pledge (11/24/2012 9:01:52 PM)
JMG05, Paragraphs are your friend! No one cares to slog through a "wall 'o text".

LookieNoNookie -> RE: No New Tax Pledge (11/25/2012 1:02:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl LOL Cant figure it out? If you're trying to suggest that it took 11,000 attempts to get 27 amendments passed so it's fallacious to even try, then I guess we might as well all just shoot ourselves then instead of trying. I tend to see it differently. I'd prefer to try 11,001 times.

DesideriScuri -> RE: No New Tax Pledge (11/25/2012 4:43:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: One of the things I really liked about Ryan's budget plan was that spending was capped at the previous year's revenues. So, each time revenue rose, it would lower the National Debt by the $$ amount of the increase. Commit to something like that, and then actually making the economy rock and roll becomes the way to increase revenues. Which allows no room for disasters... natural or otherwise. Right, because the budget it the end-all be-all to government spending. [8\|] At least the budget would be balanced at the beginning. Barring a disaster, we'd have a balanced budget. What we have now is ludicrous.

tazzygirl -> RE: No New Tax Pledge (11/25/2012 5:34:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: One of the things I really liked about Ryan's budget plan was that spending was capped at the previous year's revenues. So, each time revenue rose, it would lower the National Debt by the $$ amount of the increase. Commit to something like that, and then actually making the economy rock and roll becomes the way to increase revenues. Which allows no room for disasters... natural or otherwise. Right, because the budget it the end-all be-all to government spending. [8\|] At least the budget would be balanced at the beginning. Barring a disaster, we'd have a balanced budget. What we have now is ludicrous. [8\|] Show me a year when we didnt have a disaster? Show me a year when the states said.. no thanks, we got this one covered? Christie administration: Cost of Hurricane Sandy's damage to N.J. nearly $30B

tazzygirl -> RE: No New Tax Pledge (11/25/2012 5:35:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl LOL Cant figure it out? If you're trying to suggest that it took 11,000 attempts to get 27 amendments passed so it's fallacious to even try, then I guess we might as well all just shoot ourselves then instead of trying. I tend to see it differently. I'd prefer to try 11,001 times. No, it didnt take 11,000 attempts to get 27 passed. [8\|] I didnt think you would get it. But its fun watching you get it wrong.

DesideriScuri -> RE: No New Tax Pledge (11/25/2012 5:36:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl LOL Cant figure it out? If you're trying to suggest that it took 11,000 attempts to get 27 amendments passed so it's fallacious to even try, then I guess we might as well all just shoot ourselves then instead of trying. I tend to see it differently. I'd prefer to try 11,001 times. But, but, but, but, shouldn't it be easy to change the very framework upon which our entire system of government was to be based on?!? [8D]

tazzygirl -> RE: No New Tax Pledge (11/25/2012 5:37:17 AM)
And another one who gets it wrong. LOL This is fun!

DesideriScuri -> RE: No New Tax Pledge (11/25/2012 5:52:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: One of the things I really liked about Ryan's budget plan was that spending was capped at the previous year's revenues. So, each time revenue rose, it would lower the National Debt by the $$ amount of the increase. Commit to something like that, and then actually making the economy rock and roll becomes the way to increase revenues. Which allows no room for disasters... natural or otherwise. Right, because the budget it the end-all be-all to government spending. [8\|] At least the budget would be balanced at the beginning. Barring a disaster, we'd have a balanced budget. What we have now is ludicrous. [8\|] Show me a year when we didnt have a disaster? Show me a year when the states said.. no thanks, we got this one covered? Christie administration: Cost of Hurricane Sandy's damage to N.J. nearly $30B Why would a State tell the Feds no? What would a State do if the Feds didn't come racing in? What would a community do if FEMA refused t help? Rebuild. That's what it would do. Link 1 Link 2 Link 3 Link 4 Link 5

tazzygirl -> RE: No New Tax Pledge (11/25/2012 6:00:35 AM)
LOL So you provide 5 links of the same storm showing only 100 Million in damage to back up your weak position.

bdsmbear -> RE: No New Tax Pledge (11/25/2012 6:32:49 AM)
Nice to see that JMGO5 doesn't let facts get in the way of his fantasy!...Bush NEVER ran against Reagan...He was Reagan's VP! Bush1 made a deal with the Demoncrats to raise taxes in exchange for a promise that was NOT kept! Clinton ran deficit budgets until the Republicans won a majority in congress and presented their "Contract with America". Then the budget was balanced and a surplus was achieved! BO called Bush2's deficit spending "unpatriotic". Bush2 created a deficit of 4.9 Trillion, in 8 years. What should we call BO's 5.6 Trillion in only 4 years? Bear

tazzygirl -> RE: No New Tax Pledge (11/25/2012 6:34:41 AM)
quote: What should we call BO's 5.6 Trillion in only 4 years? Getting us out of the financial mess left by previous administrations.

DesideriScuri -> RE: No New Tax Pledge (11/25/2012 7:16:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl LOL So you provide 5 links of the same storm showing only 100 Million in damage to back up your weak position. $100M in damages across 3 Ohio Counties. And, no, my position isn't a weak one. It illustrates my point beautifully. FEMA decided it wasn't "bad enough" to get involved. So, what happened? The State kicked in some and there were lots and lots of volunteers. Local businesses helped out and the area came together as one. You might be hard pressed to think that each individual that experienced a loss from those tornados experienced less of a loss than anyone that lost from Frankenstorm Sandy simply because the total damage was a shitload lower. Might want to also take a look at those that were hit and the income variation, too.

tazzygirl -> RE: No New Tax Pledge (11/25/2012 7:18:54 AM)
quote: $100M in damages across 3 Ohio Counties. And, no, my position isn't a weak one. It illustrates my point beautifully. FEMA decided it wasn't "bad enough" to get involved. So, what happened? The State kicked in some and there were lots and lots of volunteers. Local businesses helped out and the area came together as one. 100 million isnt enough for federal aid. Between insurance companies paying off and the like, Im sure it was quickly brought around. Lets see that happen with Sandy. We all know how well that worked with Katrina. You are confusing how you want things to run with the reality of how they do.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Spam Policy

0.046875