So the "study" estimates an extension would cost $39 billion. We could just as easily come up with $39 billion by raising income taxes on people who make more than $250k by 2%.....
Cutting through all the tax collection nonsense, we need to address one thing.
- Thread starter Dino
- Start date
keep calling people on the left marxists....it really helps to persuade people that you have a clue.....
Lukey
Senator
Middleview, the left, as led by Obama, has clearly adopted a collectivist, unionist, anti-capitalist mindset. I don't know about you but I grew up during the 50's and 60's and that was a commie when and where I come from.
I'm thinking you didn't actually read the GAO study. Unfortunately I find it common in documents about government, both spending, deficits and revenue. Not all of the numbers in that document are per year. Some are related to spending over the life of a program. The upshot of that is that your $220 billion is pretty optimistic. In addition, in many cases the cuts will require spending increases initially. The idea that combining a number of health care departments related to veterans and active duty military would save a lot of money makes me wonder. It might not be the most efficient, but would we actually save much money? You have the same number of patient visits. Where did you save? You wouldn't be able to cut back on providers or even facilities.
In any case, I don't disagree that there is a lot of room for spending cuts. The problem is that a lot of those cuts will result in a lot of people being unemployed. Is that ok with you?
In any case, I don't disagree that there is a lot of room for spending cuts. The problem is that a lot of those cuts will result in a lot of people being unemployed. Is that ok with you?
and a government run by business interests, especially at the expense of the workers is called facism where I come from.
Collectivist? anti-capitalist? Dude, you've been drinking the limbaugh lemonade....
Collectivist? anti-capitalist? Dude, you've been drinking the limbaugh lemonade....
No. In two minutes you decided that the author of the GAO report is 100% accurate. It was very opimistic, but let's say that he or she is about 50% correct and you could cut $100 billion. Where is the other $900 billion and how many current federal employees and active duty military would be unemployed?
If you actually balance the budget you'd have added about a million (at least) to the unemployment rolls. So you have to cut $1 trillion to do that. At that point you haven't even cut taxes by $1.
How do you figure job creation happens?
How do you figure job creation happens?
What Krugman says is that the more generous unemployment benefits in European countries MAY contribute to less activity in searching for a job.....
Lukey
Senator
I don't listen to Limbaugh. I just calls em like I sees em. Oh, and, for the record, I don't support corporatism either. And the best way to do away with that is to reduce the role of government in the economy so smaller, more entreprenurial enterprises can start eating the mega corps' lunch.
Number_58
I'm one of the deplorables lefty warns you about.
So, you suggest we collect all the money by taxing high income earners?? That's gonna pay down our debt when spending is completely out of control in Washington DC?? And, it doesn't necessarily mean mass lay-offs...concessions will have to be made. Wasn't it our current President that said "everyone had to put some skin in this game"??
1. Nothing that Obama has done is anti-capitalism.
2. Deregulation was the number one contributor to the economic meltdown. Same thing happened when S&Ls were deregulated back in the 80s..
3. Your assumption that it is government intrusion that prevents smaller and more entreprenurial companies can succeed is bizarre. You need to do away with "Citizen United" before you can create a level playing field. As long as corporations and wealthy individuals can control what the politicians do we will see large corporations get rules that favor them over smaller and less politically active companies.
2. Deregulation was the number one contributor to the economic meltdown. Same thing happened when S&Ls were deregulated back in the 80s..
3. Your assumption that it is government intrusion that prevents smaller and more entreprenurial companies can succeed is bizarre. You need to do away with "Citizen United" before you can create a level playing field. As long as corporations and wealthy individuals can control what the politicians do we will see large corporations get rules that favor them over smaller and less politically active companies.
Lukey
Senator
Again I would just point to the recent Keystone Pipeline decision and the "Buffet Tax." Raising energy costs is "pro" capitalist? Taxing capitalists more is "pro" capitalist? One of us has some bizarre positions but it's not me...
Number_58
I'm one of the deplorables lefty warns you about.
I don't think they're trash...I think they are exactly what Lukey said they were...unskilled. It's not my fault they are unskilled, it's not Lukey's, it's not Obama's, it's nobody's fault but the unskilled. Throughout history, the unskilled have always been at the lower level of the totem pole...further, the unskilled people of this country continue to have it better off than 99% of the other unskilled workers in the world. Why do you feel that the money that I make due to MY skills, should be taken from me and given to those that have chosen their lot in life as a ditch digger?? I have no problem with people that have had a streak of hard luck getting assistance to get back on their feet...problem is, people without marketable and desirable skills end up being parasites on the funds need by those that are trying to better themselves.
Finally, my primary responsibility is to my family...my kids take priority over everyone else in my world. And, I will do whatever is under my power to ensure my kids are well provided for before I worry about providing for the kids of people that haven't taken the same steps I have.
Finally, my primary responsibility is to my family...my kids take priority over everyone else in my world. And, I will do whatever is under my power to ensure my kids are well provided for before I worry about providing for the kids of people that haven't taken the same steps I have.
1. The people of Nebraska were against the initially proposed Keystone pipeline. The consortium was involved in a number of lawsuits to employ emminent domain to force the people who live their to allow a right of way through their property. maybe you see it as a simple case of "anti-capitalism"....I don't see that capitalism enters into it. It is about the rights of the people who live somewhere to have a say in a major construction project across their own property.
2. By your logic the "pro-capitalist" thing to do is abolish taxes. Or are you saying that only rich people are capitalists and any comment about raising taxes on the wealthy then is anti-capitalist?
You guys continually avoid real conversations by making use of the rhetoric of "class warfare". It is flat out silly. You are making war on math.
2. By your logic the "pro-capitalist" thing to do is abolish taxes. Or are you saying that only rich people are capitalists and any comment about raising taxes on the wealthy then is anti-capitalist?
You guys continually avoid real conversations by making use of the rhetoric of "class warfare". It is flat out silly. You are making war on math.
Number_58
I'm one of the deplorables lefty warns you about.
I've seen you shoot down every suggestion on what should be done to address the debt and the economic problems this country has...what I haven't seen is YOUR suggestion on how we should fix it. So, what do you suggest?? Let me guess, raise taxes on the top 1% or even top 5%??
Find any of my posts where I propose collecting "all the money" by taxing high income earners.....I get tired of you guys pretending I've written something I haven't.
Number_58
I'm one of the deplorables lefty warns you about.
I never said you proposed "collecting "all the money" by taxing high income earners"...thus the two question marks (??) behind my question...see, this is how it works...if I end it with a question mark...that means I'm asking a question. If I had ended it with a period (.), then I would have been accusing you of having "written something [you] haven't."
Number_58
I'm one of the deplorables lefty warns you about.
btw...I asked you to let us all know how you would go about solving the debt issue, in a post further down the thread. All we've seen from you so far is babble about why nothing we've suggested will work...So, tell us, what do you suggest we, as a country, do to address our debt crisis?
