Democrat economic policies...

[Lukey]

Interesting:

“...today I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office. This will not be easy. It will require us to make difficult decisions and face challenges we’ve long neglected. But I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay — and that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control.”

 

[OldGaffer]

And then he met the reality of a the Republican filibuster.

 

[Lukey]

And then he met the reality of a the Republican filibuster.

Link to any ONE spending cut the Republicans filibustered.

 

[OldGaffer]

Link to any ONE spending cut the Republicans filibustered.

How about revenue increases, do they not count?

 

[Lukey]

How about revenue increases, do they not count?

"...that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control.”

 

[Zam-Zam]

Interesting:

“...today I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office. This will not be easy. It will require us to make difficult decisions and face challenges we’ve long neglected. But I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay — and that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control.”

Talking the talk, not walking the walk. His apologists will now explain why that's somebody else's fault.

 

[moddem38]

As the old line goes about the weather, people talk about spending cuts, no one actually does anything about it. The politicians know the voters don't really want spending cuts. Spending reductions are popular as an abstract principle, but when specifics are mentioned, the American public becomes a lot less fiscally conservative.

 

[Lukey]

As the old line goes about the weather, people talk about spending cuts, no one actually does anything about it. The politicians know the voters don't really want spending cuts. Spending reductions are popular as an abstract principle, but when specifics are mentioned, the American public becomes a lot less fiscally conservative.

They aren't crazy about tax increases either, but Obama seems to have found a sweet spot on that with his "tax the rich" and "fair share" mantras. The only problem with that is that in any honest look at income taxation, the rich a) pay the vast majority of income taxes already and b) pay at a rate about twice their "fair share" even if you don't count the 47% of Americans who pay 0% (in which case they pay in infinitely higher share).

 

[OldGaffer]

Any of you Wingers want to tell me the last time a Republican President submitted a balanced budget? If you are under 50 you were not born yet. Winger Presidents perfected the borrow from China and spend philosophy, and "proved that deficits dont matter", and yet, here you are, preaching to the Dems about your street creds on fiscal responsibility, what a joke you and your party has become.

 

[moddem38]

They aren't crazy about tax increases either, but Obama seems to have found a sweet spot on that with his "tax the rich" and "fair share" mantras. The only problem with that is that in any honest look at income taxation, the rich a) pay the vast majority of income taxes already and b) pay at a rate about twice their "fair share" even if you don't count the 47% of Americans who pay 0% (in which case they pay in infinitely higher share).

1.Taxes have been cut since Obama became President. The Bush tax cuts were extended and payroll taxes severely reduced. 2. Fair share is a philosophical concept, not an economic one. There is no clear definition of what that phrase means. 3.The 47% number is very misleading; even the very conservative National Review has an article criticizing it. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/283265/freeloader-myth-ramesh-ponnuru?pg=2

Ponnuru makes two points: The expansion of the child credit is the major reason for the higher amount of non-income tax. (I personally oppose that credit, for what it's worth). 2.A number of the "freeloaders" paying no income tax are the elderly and benefit from such features of the tax code as the non-taxation of some Social Security benefits. So my 80 year old sick aunt is one of the freeloaders. Maybe I'll get on her case the next time I see her.

 

[Lukey]

1.Taxes have been cut since Obama became President. The Bush tax cuts were extended and payroll taxes severely reduced. 2. Fair share is a philosophical concept, not an economic one. There is no clear definition of what that phrase means. 3.The 47% number is very misleading; even the very conservative National Review has an article criticizing it. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/283265/freeloader-myth-ramesh-ponnuru?pg=2

Ponnuru makes two points: The expansion of the child credit is the major reason for the higher amount of non-income tax. (I personally oppose that credit, for what it's worth). 2.A number of the "freeloaders" paying no income tax are the elderly and benefit from such features of the tax code as the non-taxation of some Social Security benefits. So my 80 year old sick aunt is one of the freeloaders. Maybe I'll get on her case the next time I see her.

Within the first three paragraphs I found a glaring error. "Only 18% pay neither income taxes or payroll taxes." Right off the bat that is misleading because one of the expressed purposes of the EITC is to "rebate" wage taxes. So you need to add the eitc folks into the "pays neither" group to get an accurate picture of how many "freeloaders" there really are. And then there's the whole matter of fact that the average person will receive more in Medicare and Social Security benefits than they will ever pay in wage taxes. So, unless the rich are getting back more in some sort of transfer payment than they pay in income taxes (some ranchers & farmers might but it's a pretty small number) then using wage taxes to negate a "free rider" label is, quite frankly, rather spurious.