The Debt Debate And Obama Lies
by Big Dog on Jul 23, 2011 at 10:58 Political
The debate on raising the debt limit is hitting critical mass and there are a few things that are worth noting on the issue. Talks have reportedly broken down and Obama threw another tantrum last evening. It appears he is having problems because his base wants taxes raised and they insist that it all can’t be done with cuts alone. This is, of course, pure fabrication because there is enough waste in government along with unnecessary programs to balance the budget without raising taxes. Taxes are high enough and it is important to remember that when government talks about balancing cuts with taxes that the cuts take place over ten years and the taxes take effect immediately.
Democrats are in a tizzy and Obama is acting like a spoiled child who can’t get his way. He has resorted to scare tactics to get his point across and it is probably working with some groups of people who are not as informed as they should be. Obama’s tactics are terror tactics designed to gain compliance to his wishes by terrorizing those who have become enslaved to the government. He is also using the word default as in for the first time in our history we will default on our obligations. This is malarkey. We have enough money coming in to service our debt and a default is the inability to do that so no matter how times Sir Golfsalot says it, it isn’t true. We will not default on our debt. We will, however, not be able to pay for some of the things that politicians have promised in order to get votes. We might not be able to afford some of the agencies that are either not needed or have grown way too big and need to be smaller anyway.
No matter what, we will not default on our debt.
Obama is using terror against the elderly, those enslaved to government through forced participation in the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security. Obama stated that if we do not settle this he can’t guarantee that Social Security checks go out in August. Really? We take in enough money each month to not only service our debt (which means we won’t default) but to also pay the recipients of Social Security the money they paid into a system that has been mismanaged by politicians. This should actually be a wake up call to the people who believed that government had the money to pay this obligation. The money has not been put away in a special trust fund. The money was moved to the general fund under LBJ, a Democrat, and has been spent on pet projects of politicians. They did what Bernie Madoff did and he is in jail.
Obama claims that he cannot guarantee those checks will go out but this is a lie. He can make that guarantee unless he has decided that there are other entities that need the money more, like say his union thug friends. The reality is that Obama can guarantee the checks go out and he should do that. In fact, the House should call his bluff and pass legislation that says that in the event a deal is not reached then the money must be spent to service the debt, pay Social Security recipients, and pay the military. After that they can do what they want with the rest. That would force the Senate to either side with Social Security recipients (as they claim they do) or vote against them. It would force Obama to do the same.
Republicans should stop playing games with this child and back him into a corner so that he is forced to make tough decisions. Force him to either sign it or screw over the Seniors. Force him and the Senate to make these decisions through legislation because negotiations are getting us nowhere.
Democrats say we must raise the debt ceiling in order to keep from going into default (a claim I have already addressed) but they are in a tizzy because there are no tax increases in these Republican offered bills. That brings up another point. Democrats have offered no solutions and have not offered a budget in two years. The only thing they know how to do is tax and spend. Barbara Mikulski, the gnome Senator from Maryland, is very upset that tax increases are not included in any of the plans. Mikulski is an idiot and should have been turned out to pasture a long time ago. She could not survive in the real world and the morons in Maryland keep reelecting her because she keeps giving them someone else’s stuff. Yes, this is why Babs (and the rest of the Democrats) want higher taxes. They want more of people’s money so they can give it to other people who will then vote for them. It is the same scheme that has caused this problem but she does not care.
I can understand why Obama is upset. He is in the position of having to beg Congress to do what he was unwilling to do when he was in the Senate. He must now admit to the world that the fact we are here asking to raise the debt ceiling is a lack of leadership. Those were his words when he was in the Senate and now he is forced to admit that he has been lacking as a leader. In fact, all Democrats in the Senate voted against raising the ceiling the last time and this is what Harry Reid had to say at the time:
“If my Republican friends believe that increasing our debt by almost $800 billion today and more than $3 trillion over the last five years is the right thing to do, they should be upfront about it. They should explain why they think more debt is good for the economy.
How can the Republican majority in this Congress explain to their constituents that trillions of dollars in new debt is good for our economy? How can they explain that they think it’s fair to force our children, our grandchildren, our great grandchildren to finance this debt through higher taxes. That’s what it will have to be. Why is it right to increase our nation’s dependence on foreign creditors?
They should explain this. Maybe they can convince the public they’re right. I doubt it. Because most Americans know that increasing debt is the last thing we should be doing. After all, I repeat, the Baby Boomers are about to retire. Under the circumstances, any credible economist would tell you we should be reducing debt, not increasing it.
Keep in mind that Democrats want to increase the debt limit by 2.5 trillion dollars which is quite a bit more than Reid discussed above. They want to push this issue past the next election so they do not have to deal with it again.
In any event, Obama now has a record and people are far less impressed with his actions as they were with the words. Some folks have figured out that it was easy for Obama to talk but acting on the words was not so easy. They figured out that he was way more radical than he led them to believe and that he is not an effective leader. In fact, it has to be troubling to Obama that Ron Paul is within striking distance in the presidential polls.
So here we have a leader who spent like there was no tomorrow on programs that cost more money and failed to stimulate saying we have to be responsible with the debt while asking us to bump the credit limit another 2.5 TRILLION dollars. They promise cuts that will take place over ten years (and we know that never happens) while taxing us immediately. And yes, the taxes will hit all of us one way or another.
What could go wrong with this plan?
Here is an idea. Balanced budget amendment to the Constitution to force them to live within OUR means. Flat tax that all wage earners pay and cuts across the board to government with the elimination of unconstitutional or unnecessary programs and departments.
Until that time we need to take a new approach to slap people like Mikulski back into reality. Obama promised that if he were to get elected it would not be business as usual in DC. With that in mind, let’s do things a little differently. We want the cuts to the budget to be IMMEDIATE and the tax increases to be over ten years.
It is OUR money and dammit, it is time they listened to us tell them how to spend it.
One thing is certain. They don’t want to cut and they want to raise taxes but on August 2nd they are not going to have much of a choice. There will be a lot more cutting than they wanted to happen and it won’t take place over ten years.
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: budget, debt limit, lies, Obama, tax cuts, taxes
“Republicans should stop playing games with this child and back him into a corner so that he is forced to make tough decisions.”
What you mean is the GOP should bully their way past the Democratic Senate and the Democratic White House? Because? Because the GOP House is somehow more powerful? More inclined to get it’s way?
The GOP has to face that it cannot get everything it wants while the Democrats get nothing they want. The perfect deal would be somewhere in the range of 3 to 1 spending cuts to revenue increases. We’ve seen several deals come close to that but fail because the GOP base has somehow forgotten it’s only one third of the government and therefore has to compromise.
“One thing is certain. They don’t want to cut and they want to raise taxes but on August 2nd they are not going to have much of a choice.”
The most recent details of a plan didn’t even have increased tax rates but trillions in cuts. The Democrats want revenue more than they want specific tax increases. Don’t pretend the Democrats are the ones in the meeting refusing to compromise when the GOP is the one asking for one thing and one thing only: Cuts and no increased revenue.
How long before John Boehner cries in public about how the other 2 branches of government just won’t compromise with his 1?
The Republicans are the only ones that have proposed any kind of plan. The idea of 3 to 1 or any other kind is BS and you should know that. This is what they promised Reagan and it ended up being more taxes and less cutting. They put cuts at a ten year timeline and then change it in the future. They never change the taxes. So until your side actually proposes something, they have no say.
And where did you go to school? There are 3 branches of government and one does not figure in this, the Legislative. Boehner belongs to the same one as the Senate so the reality is that a part of the same branch and the Executive will not compromise, if we accept your argument as true in the first place.
Actually, the legislative is part of the process as is the Executive. The one that does not figure is the Judicial. Somehow I mangled that sentence but you get the point.
“Balanced budget amendment to the Constitution to force them to live within OUR means.”
The balanced budget admendment is a scam to trick your side into supporting the GOP. It’s never going to pass. It won’t even come close. There is no realistic way to manage a federal budget with a balance limit and the current version the GOP is slinging is completely useless.
States have balanced budget rules and they seem to do OK. You don’t understand because you don’t think continual spending is a problem if the evil rich would just pay their share. Of course, they pay more than their share…
Actually, apparently the most recent deal
included a request to end the individual mandate for health care. If that is true then what is wrong with the GOP? Are they losing their minds? It’s like every time they get close on a deal something crazy gets thrown on the table that blows up the negotiations. How you can side with the GOP and pretend it’s Obama that’s being a child in these negotiations is a mystery to me.
You can call them revenues but the only way to do that is raise taxes. Address the concerns with everyone’s taxes and stop spending money to buy votes. Cuts can get it and we want them now, not in 10 years.
The people in D.C., (either side of the aisle) will never stop their outlandish spending on stupid, duplicate wasteful ‘programs’ without a balanced budget amendment. Isn’t that incredibly obvious? They need “some” incentive to stop the waste–to keep them fiscally responsible, ’cause history has proven it ain’t gonna happen w/o it. For Obama to say they don’t need a balanced budget amendment to do what they need to do is an incredible and outlandish lie! He insults our intelligence every time he speaks. Look where we are! Mr. golfsalot has increased our debt in 2-1/2 years by more than all previous 43 presidents combined!
“And where did you go to school? There are 3 branches of government and one does not figure in this, the Legislative.”
Sorry. Got a bit excited there and forgot my high school civics.
“The idea of 3 to 1 or any other kind is BS and you should know that.”
No, it’s just the plan supported by many mainstream economists. We can cut our way to a balanced budget but we have obligations to the people that are worth keeping in place. We could tax our way to a balanced budget but that would hurt as well. Obama and others say they want a “balanced approach” but they aren’t calling for 50/50. They’re still calling for many more spending cuts than revenue increases but your side is so far willing to see us default as opposed to give a little to the other side.
“States have balanced budget rules and they seem to do OK.”
The states have all kinds of tricks for keeping money off the books. The idea that they manage to balance in the same sense that the federal government would balance is simply a myth.
“You don’t understand because you don’t think continual spending is a problem if the evil rich would just pay their share.”
No, I just know we can sustain a certain level of spending if we return to late 90’s level of taxation on the top income earners in the US. We still need cuts.
The rich are not evil (not all of them anyway). You have to put that sentiment out there to make reasonable tax policy instead look like class warfare from the left. Remind me again how we could tax 100% of the rich money and it would not balance the books. You know 3% is pretty far from 100% but why not bring it up again?
Bari is throwing a tantrum because the GOP is insisting on a short term deal if the Crats are not going to go along with the Cut, Cap, and Balance approach, which is the most sensible plan I have heard in a long time. Perhaps then we would not have silly stuff like turtle tunnels to nowhere.
We need sound fiscal policy to pull Owebama’s car out of this ditch- and it WILL take painful (to liberals at least) cuts to get this done.
To think otherwise is to turn away from the core problem- and that is runaway spending- on either side of the aisle, and that is what the balanced budget amendment would do- but then, you have these obstructive asshats in the Senate who do not know their place- which is to side with their states, not their parties.
He had better call for waaaay more cuts than “tax” increases! Do you read anything about the unreal waste by our federal gov’t.? Sure, sure, my “….’side’ is willing to see us default…’ It is so said that the MSM, and the bully pulpit president has sold you on that! Where has Prez golfsalot BEEN? This is a leader? This problem is down to the wire because he has be AWOL on the issue! Who has been presenting the plans? Who?? The GOP is tanding firm for a plan that will not raise taxes because that will work. We have a huge spending problem, not a lack of revenue problem. Hand D.C. more revenue and we exacerbate the problem. We need to take the cookie jar away from them. Widen your horizons, open your mind–listen to the radio; read something besides the socialist agenda of the MSM, which is not about reality, but trying to make life ‘fair’ by taking from the producers and giving to the non-producers, AND about getting re-elected! Look what was said and promised in 2008 and where we are! When do you stop believing the sales pitch and face facts? If you like big government, higher taxes, and more people being encouraged to depend on gov’t (your tax money), then don’t open your mind or even consider for one moment that we are heading off a cliff into ….. Greece. Just keep doing what Dem’s are famous for: fighting the real facts and numbers with name-calling, lies and personal attacks.
http://strongamericanow.com/plan
“We have a huge spending problem, not a lack of revenue problem.”
Revenue is the lowest it’s been since the 1950’s. That’s a problem.
“Where has Prez golfsalot BEEN? This is a leader?”
The failure of Congress to deliver either a clean debt ceiling increase or debt compromise bill has little to do with Obama. He’s been leading on this because of the failure of Congress to take the lead like they should.
“…but trying to make life ‘fair’ by taking from the producers and giving to the non-producers…”
If that was ever the case it would mean something. The producers reside in the middle class. The so-called “non-producers” are the workers and the consumers. Your side will protect the rich but ask for more from the poor and the middle class? And you say I’ve been lied to? God knows somebody has been mislead and you’re not making a very strong case for yourself.
Loads of people are not working, are underemployed, have given up looking for work…THAT’s why we have less tax money (revenue) coming in!
We are in a dire situation and it is NOT because our taxes are too low! That is ridiculous! If you want to pay more taxes, be my guest, send the IRS more money to waste…they will! Beware the knock on the front door “we are the government and we are here to help.”
A must watch for every American citizen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTbjcKZzrmM
Non-producers are not workers. Non-producers take but give nothing. When we reward the wrong kind of behavior, we are doomed as a nation.
“Sides” is not what this dire condition is about. It’s sad that you see it as “sides.” Your statement that my “…side will protect the rich” is total Left-wing, non-fact based attack…oft-used when they do not have a good argument. That is what you’ve been sold. You bought it. I hate to burst your bubble but it ain’t so. I have little-mostly nothing! But, I always have and always will work hard…it’s my duty as a human being! More evidence of this ‘personal attack’ mode: Candy Crowley’s question “Why shouldn’t we just look at this and say it is another giant game of ‘chicken’ by our legislators?” The media (mostly Leftist spin!) has outlived its usefulness…they don’t report any more, they are 24/7, self-important finger pointers and judge and jury who take ‘sides,’ to pump up their own importance.
Imagine a well-to-do person ( that evil rich guy )is hit with a higher rax rate. He/she does not simply pay that larger amount and go on with life as usual! He/she has power and options: they will do any or all of the following: raise their rents, raise the prices in their stores, hire less people, give less or lower raises, offer less benefits to employees. You and I pay their tax burden! Hello!
In this capitalist, free-enterprise society (which we are losing quickly), you can NOT tax the rich. Years ago the Dems decided to tax the luxury boat business…almost putting it out of business entirely. The rich didn’t buy boats!
Read and watch video at http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=323521# just as one teeny example of how your gov’t can/will/does waste money. Only ‘waste’ is not the half of it.
Read John C. Bogle’s “Enough”
Bari has been leading???????? Is THAT what you call leading? Wow- you ARE delusional, Adam, and I thought you were only a liberal, but you apparently suffer from hallucinations- That guy has NEVER led- he had Pelosi and Reid hammer out the disastroous “Obamacare” health bill, and Dodd- Frank did the financial reform, and Meshell does the food police thingie, so just WHAThas he done? Golf does not count.
Just two important articles for every thinking and caring American to read, not just Adam 🙂
A very smart black man and a very smart black woman make their case:
http://www.exposeobama.com/2011/07/19/allen-west-anyone-with-an-obama-2012-bumper-sticker-is-a-threat-to-the-gene-pool/
http://townhall.com/columnists/starparker/2009/02/09/back_on_uncle_sams_plantation/page/full/
personal responsibility by each and every citizen is what this country sorely needs now…not spin, taking sides,name-calling, finger-pointing and ‘business as usual’ in congress.
“Non-producers are not workers.”
Then who are the non-producers?
“THAT’s why we have less tax money (revenue) coming in!”
That is also why we have more debt but we really haven’t increased spending as much as conservatives want people to believe.
“We are in a dire situation and it is NOT because our taxes are too low!”
That is why I’m only calling for increases as about 1/4th of a solution.
Only a liberal would agree with a statement that our problem is not because of taxes being too ;ow by saying that is why he is only calling for a small tax increase.
How come the tax increase of 3% can’t take place over ten years like the cuts?
How come only the rich have their taxes increased and how come 47% of wage earners pay no taxes? (and once again for liberals, we are talking about federal INCOME taxes)
You didn’t watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTbjcKZzrmM did you? Believe Steve Wynn, not the B.S. on TV that the GOP is protecting the rich! That is the epitome of lies, Class-warfare and total B.S. the GOP is for business. Without business we are goners!
How can you call someone who is working a non-producer? Because big, outlandish, unwise and wasteful gov’t. has put us where we are, many cannot find a job or are working harder for a lot less! Yes, even if they are working for a lot less they are producers…but they can’t produce much tax revenue compared to what they made prior to 2008…thank you Wash. D.C.!
You don’t see a problem with increasing taxes to the level of the 90s and we are only talking about 3% OK, I will agree to raise those taxes to the level they were in the 90s ONLY if we go back to the same level of spending we had then.
Now, if you think raising the taxes to that level is good because we did it in the 90s then you should have no problem with lowering our spending to what it was in the 90s. You see, the problem is not that taxes went down 3% for the wealthy (and at least as much for everyone else) it is that spending increased by many multiples of 3%.
We all know that when there is a combination of tax increases and spending cuts the spending cuts NEVER happen and the taxes go up.
“How come only the rich have their taxes increased and how come 47% of wage earners pay no taxes?”
Because the rich never deserved the tax cut to start with. It didn’t help or hurt them in any way. It didn’t grow our economy or jobs. It just shorted us a trillion dollars and allowed more of the super rich to keep their “hard earned” dollars.
Why do 47% of households pay no income taxes? Because they either earn too little combined income, have a big family, or both. I know you envision a bunch of untaxed free loaders running around voting against your vision of America but that doesn’t really happen anyway so you can stop worrying. Only a very tiny fraction of Americans pay no federal taxes at all.
“You see, the problem is not that taxes went down 3% for the wealthy (and at least as much for everyone else) it is that spending increased by many multiples of 3%.”
And again, that is why I’ve called for a 3 to 1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases. I can’t help it if your side hates tax increases and only wants to cut waste fraud and abuse from programs that largely support those outside their voting base while defending big business and the wealthy from any similar cuts.
I guess that, not being rich yourself, you suffer envy, and that might explain your rancor- however, in this country, you can start in a garage, (a la Bill Gates), and end up superrich. THAT IS THE AMERICAN DREAM-not being coddled and held up by rich people’s money instead of earning your own- that is a stupid position, and no thinking person should believe this.
This is the land of OPPORTUNITY, not guaranteed, cradle to grave care. If that is what you really want, we have that- it is called prison.
Oh yes, Adam says we want to hurt those who are not our base but what he really means is his party wants to keep certain people enslaved to gubmint. And once again Adam, those spending to tax ratios do not work. They keep the taxes and do not make the cuts. You can check history to see that. The answer is NO. You want to increase taxes you can do it over ten years and the cuts are immediate.
And quit distoting the truth. You keep playing games with words. You claim that a tiny part pay no federal taxes. You know damned well we are discussing INCOME taxes. The SS and medicare taxes are targeted and are supposed to be used for specific programs (they are not because of malfeasance). We are discussing INCOME taxes and 47% of wage earners pay NO income taxes. End of story.
And who the fu*k are you to say whether the rich “deserved” anything? IT IS THEIR MONEY. Who the hell are you to say whether they deserve to keep it or not?
So let me put it in your terms, the poor do not deserve air conditioning, cell phones or cars if they are on any kind of assistance. They do not deserve MY money and I get to make that call. Not you and not the gubmint. Who the hell are you to say what rich people (and though I am not rich I pay lots in taxes) deserve with regard to their money? How can you say they do not deserve to keep what is theirs but say that someone else deserves it?
Asshat.
And tax cuts do not short us money. Excessive spending shorts us money. The taxes got cut and revenue to the treasury increased. Congress spent more. A trillion dollars in waste is the stimulus. 2.5 trillion in waste is Obamacare. We also have waste in planetariums, swimming pools, turtle tunnels, mice habitats, studying the penis size of homos, and on and on.
Yes, we can balance the budget by cutting and only by cutting. And that is what needs to be done.
And if you are concerned about the wealthy paying their taxes then ask Obama to make his peeps pay theirs. All we see are wealthy Dems avoiding taxes…
“We are discussing INCOME taxes and 47% of wage earners pay NO income taxes. End of story.”
And that is why I wrote:
Or maybe while you were getting cussing mad that I would dare think the poor rich need to get a 3% tax increase you forgot to read for context.
“So let me put it in your terms, the poor do not deserve air conditioning, cell phones or cars if they are on any kind of assistance.”
Which opinion do you think makes one of us look like the bigger fool? That the wealthy should pay slightly more in taxes because I think that it’s only fair? Or if you get assistance from social programs your life actions should get drastically restricted such as no cold air in summer, no convenience of cell phones that cost about as much as a land line now, and you cannot have a car to get to work. Fun stuff.
“All we see are wealthy Dems avoiding taxes…”
Yes, when Obama calls for increasing taxes on the rich he means only Republicans…
Don’t twist the words around. You know damn well that if you get to say what one group of people deserve (of their own belongings no less) then the same holds true for all other groups.
I have no problem with the poor having anything. I have a real problem with someone else paying for it all. What entitles you to the fruit of another person’s labor?
Who are you to say what they should or should not get to keep? Who are you to decide how their money is best spent?
“Who are you to say what they should or should not get to keep?”
We’ve been over this many times. I’m a voter. I vote in the majority of Americans that want fewer taxes on the poor and the middle class and more taxes on the rich.
“I have a real problem with someone else paying for it all.”
We all pay for those below us. Even the poor pay. Income tax is progressive. That’s just the way it is.
The poor pay very little in income tax and most of them get back more than was collected form them.
Adam, being a voter does not allow you to decide how others spend their money. Being a voter means you get to vote for people who you think will best carry out the LIMITED role of government (and you have failed miserably by the way). Being a voter does not mean you get to decide what others do with their property or that you get to decide how much of it they get to keep.
The majority of Americans want fewer taxes on everyone. Your own heroes work hard to avoid their own taxes. Kerry, Geithner, Rangle, and Buffett, all work hard to avoid paying their taxes. The majority of Americans want a fair system where people all pay their fair share.
If you want to go back to the tax structure under Clinton just say so but if we do it can’t just be for the rich. It has to be for everyone. Since the middle class and poor benefitted the most from the tax cuts they will get hit the hardest. Your contention is that the tax structure under Clinton allowed us to do better (it was actually a Republican Congress curbing Clinton’s appetite to spend) then we have to go back to the entire tax structure and it was higher for everyone.
So if the majority of Americans voted to make liberals pay more taxes than Conservatives you would be fine with that because we voted witht he majority to make you pay more?
“The poor pay very little in income tax and most of them get back more than was collected form them.”
The poor earn very little income and the fact that they get even more back is part of the Bush tax cuts that you love and support.
“Being a voter does not mean you get to decide what others do with their property…”
Of course not. But yes, I do vote for people who represent my views and back up a public that understands the usefulness of a progressive tax scale. Americans want a fair system where people pay their fair share? Sure. We have one. The public supports it. Your view is not only wrong but not backed by public opinion.
“So if the majority of Americans voted to make liberals pay more taxes than Conservatives…”
That’s fantasy. What isn’t fantasy is the fact that the public supports a progressive income tax scale. The rich don’t pay that much more than the rest of America. They just earn a whole lot more and it gives you a handy talking point to suggest they pay most of the taxes.
Remember the pies? Let’s say I own the vast majority of the pies in town. I bring one of them to the party for guests to share. There are many folks concerned about how much of that pie I take home at the end of the day. Some pie bringers want us to take more. Others understand that it’s only a matter of a few more or less pieces of pie and the end of the day. I’ve got hundreds more at home anyway.
It is fantasy to think that taxing the rich more makes a difference. The tax rate on the rich was 90% at one time (on income above 400k). Reagan and many other actors said they would not do more films after they hit the 400k because the government would take 90% of what they earned. That is how progressive taxes work. The higher the tax rates, the more the people do to avoid paying them. Many rich liberals work hard to avoid paying more taxes. Even the liberal Beatles were upset at how much they had to pay.
You see, the reality is if you don’t force me to give you more of my pies I can decide who gets them do instead of you taking them and one piece filtering to someone who needs it i can donate a lot of my pies directly.
How is a progressive tax fair? We can debate all day whther it is good or not but how is it fair? Fair means that the circumstances are equal for everyone. How is forcing some to pay more than others, fair?
Don’t ask me how it is fair if people make less than others. That is a matter of the person and his circumstances. We all have equal opportunity, what we do with it is up to us. However, when we make money because of our efforts, how is it FAIR (as fair is defined) to take more from some than others?
Explain to me how you can use the word fair when discussing a system that takes more from some than from others. And when you say fair share wouldn’t that indicate that everyone should have skin in the game (to quote one of your heroes)? Since the poor pay no taxes how is that fair and what is their fair share?
As for getting back more than they pay in, Bush had nothing to do with that. the tax las have allowed that through credits for years before Bush became president. His tax cuts allowed people to keep more of their OWN money.
Adam, read all of this
http://secure.campaigner.com/Campaigner/Public/t.show?MLHv–8xi7-k3Gln9
We all should read more and talk less. The only thing I know for sure is that I will never know enough!
Good article. Cain is right in that both parties have been responsible but right now Obama and the Dems own it. And while Adam might reject that idea, Debbie Wasserperson (politically correct here) Schultz said the Dems own it.
That is a campaign document full of spin and outright lies. I don’t know why you’d share that with me. It’s the same thing we hear conservatives saying every day. Or as Cain would call it, “nuance and misinformation.”
Cain is one of the folks that believes we don’t need the debt ceiling raised. He’s living in denial in order to whip up his rube base to score political points. Unfortunately for him it’s not working and he’s floundering in the polls.
Cain is right we do not need to raise the debt ceiling. Or was Obama wrong when he said we did not need to do so the last time?
And you must be a racist for disagreeing with a black guy. I mean, when we disagree with obama you all call us racists so you all must be now…
We do not need to raise the debt ceiling. We can get by without doing so just like Obam, Reid, and all other Dems said we could last time. How is it we could get by then but not now?
Everything Cain said in that is right. Obama owns this, period.
And please, point out the lies.
“Cain is right we do not need to raise the debt ceiling. Or was Obama wrong when he said we did not need to do so the last time?”
Count yourself one of the deluded then. Obama played politics with the debt ceiling because he knew it would get passed. He can’t shirk his responsibility to play politics on this now that he’s president.
“I mean, when we disagree with obama you all call us racists so you all must be now…”
I have never once called you a racist simply for disagreeing with Obama. Stop lying.
“And please, point out the lies.”
It’s full of spin and lies.
Lie: Endless spending is the result with liberal Democrats in control of the national checkbook.
We know the majority of this debt is due to the recession, the two wars, the tax cuts, and Medicare changes Bush made. None of that is the responsibility of the Democrats.
Spin: This is the same Senate, of course, that has not even passed a budget in over 800 days.
What does that even say about the situation? If they passed a budget your side would just complain even more.
Lie: He owns this crisis, because it did not need to happen. He did not lead when he needed to lead.
Really? The debt ceiling isn’t raised because Obama failed…to give the GOP every single thing they wanted including votes in the Senate somehow? Last time I checked the GOP has not passed a bill that would even make it out of Congress. The GOP had a chance to raise it in a clean bill and did not. Obama’s role has been to get a bill they can all agree on. To the GOP that means Obama should be giving them everything they want?
Spin: Now you and I cannot even fathom trying to run our households or our businesses for well over two years without a budget, but this is what is going on in Washington under liberal Democrat control.
It’s a government, not a household. Why is that analogy so common from your side? Why do you think it’s a proper analogy?
We do not know the majority of the debt is this. The debt of which you speak is a small portion of the overall mess. The reality is, we have to raise the limit now because Obama has run a 5 trillion dollar deficit. And if you blam ethe war then blame Obama . he said he would bring the troops home. Instead, he started another one in libya (which you guys are not our protesting). The majority is not due to the recession. The recession was the catalyst that allowed our out of control spending to explode and exposed the lies of the Social Security system.
It does not matter if the Republicans would scream about what was in a budget, the Congress has a Constitutional obligation to have a budget. You abrogate that responsibility because Republicans might complain? We complained about Obamacare and the Stimulus but that did not stop you from passing them. Who is spinning, you or Cain?
The crisis did not need to happen. We have spent trillions of dollars we did not need to spend. The Democrats have added to that since they took control and it did not need to happen. Simple fact, Obama is the guy in charge so he owns it.
You excuse Obama for his playing politics with out nation and indicate that it was Ok when he did it but then claim Republicans are playing politics with the debt ceiling and you just don’t like that. Obama had no problem playing games when he was a Senator but now does not like it that he is being stonewalled when he wants it. To bad poor little baby.
He wanted a clean bill, right he wanted a blank check to do what he wanted without addressing the real problem. We spend too much, period.
Yes, it is the same as a household budget but on a grander scale. I want you to explain why it is an improper analogy. It is correct because we expect to live within our means as a household and as a country. Running huge deficits is improper management and leads to ruin. It is true no matter what the size of the budget.
Funny, you say Cain is wrong in his analogy but believe obama with his private jet claims…
Running a budget is the same everywhere. The rules do not change because it is the almighty federal government. The truth is, you don’t understand it because you do not understand what responsibility is.
“The debt of which you speak is a small portion of the overall mess.”
No, it’s not.
“The reality is, we have to raise the limit now because Obama has run a 5 trillion dollar deficit.”
Source?
“Running a budget is the same everywhere. The rules do not change because it is the almighty federal government.”
We’re talking about a multi-trillion dollar economy and with a population over 300 million and obligations all over the globe. No, it’s not like every other budget. I cannot believe your side thinks it can lead when so many of you have this same mentality.
And yet you guys think you can lead with the mentality that doing things the way they have always been done will end up with a different result. We have been doing it like you want for a very long time and are over 100 trillion in debt (all debt).
But you keep thinking that it is right.
The reason people are in trouble is that many run their household budgets like the government which is also in trouble. Let’s try it differently and see if we can get different results.
Limit Congress’ ability to spend and we will be in better shape.
Didn’t someone say (and I’m paraphrasing) Doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result is the definition of insanity? Sounds about right in this case.