RE: No New Tax Pledge

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

SilverMark -> RE: No New Tax Pledge (11/25/2012 7:28:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bdsmbear 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 I guess those 1980 primaries didn't count?...Must have been yet another Bush?....and although Clinton was the one who proposed the budgets in his Presidency, that didn't matter? You must have missed a few days in history class...

Hillwilliam -> RE: No New Tax Pledge (11/25/2012 7:32:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bdsmbear 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! Before he was Reagan's VP, he ran against him in the primaries. In fact, he was the guy (or his speechwriter) who came up with the term "Voodoo Economics" to deride Reagan's trickle down theory.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: No New Tax Pledge (11/25/2012 8:40:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bdsmbear 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 Bush Sr. ran against Reagan in 1980 and was chosen by Reagan for his VP.

DesideriScuri -> RE: No New Tax Pledge (11/25/2012 11:28:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl 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. I am not against Federal assistance in times of massive disasters. I'm against the Feds being the overwhelming bulk of assistance in times of massive disasters. I supported FEMA not helping out NW Ohio after the tornadoes. I didn't think it was their place. My point is that the Federal Government, IMO, should help local and state governments and not have local and state governments help the Feds. Huge difference.

tazzygirl -> RE: No New Tax Pledge (11/25/2012 11:32:32 AM)
You do realize that many states are not allowed to give the type of aid that FEMA and the federal government give.

DesideriScuri -> RE: No New Tax Pledge (11/25/2012 5:51:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl You do realize that many states are not allowed to give the type of aid that FEMA and the federal government give. "Not allowed?!?" Now, that's fucked up! Do you support that?

outhere69 -> RE: No New Tax Pledge (11/25/2012 6:22:11 PM)
The reason why the feds take that work on is that the states can't pay for it themselves. Seems to me that congress critters take an oath to the constitution, not an asshole like Norquist, who got the idea of the pledge when he was a teenager. He saw it as a branding campaign.

tazzygirl -> RE: No New Tax Pledge (11/25/2012 6:41:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl You do realize that many states are not allowed to give the type of aid that FEMA and the federal government give. "Not allowed?!?" Now, that's fucked up! Do you support that? LOL.... do I support that? For example.... I do not have insurance and I cannot afford a loan, can the state help? Answer: Sorry, the state will not be able to pay for your losses. Washington State’s Constitution says: “The credit of the state shall not, in any manner be given or loaned to, or in aid of, any individual, association, company, or corporation.” Essentially this means that state taxpayer dollars cannot be spent to help an individual with disaster related losses. http://www.emd.wa.gov/disaster/disaster_household_faqs.shtml Whats to support or not support?

subspaceseven -> RE: No New Tax Pledge (11/26/2012 4:25:09 AM)
They are not backing off it at all, if you listen to what they are saying, it is mostly things like, "we need to create revenue, from closing loopholes , like the mortgage deduction the child deduction and a few other things which are basically the only tax breaks the middle class receive. The stand fast on not taxing the top 1% it's the old bait and switch, they say what you want to hear then walk it back at the end of the sentence Like this from Graham Republicans should put revenue on the table. We’re this far in debt. We don’t generate enough revenue. Capping deductions will help generate revenues. Raising tax rates will hurt job creation. I agree with Grover that we shouldn’t raise rates, but I think Grover is wrong when it comes to we can’t cap deductions. [...]

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

5.078125E-02