That's it in a nutshell!
Let's face it: The vast majority of the nation simply loves this spending. It's as simple as that, whether we like it or not.
Apostle Claver tells the world how the real party of racism is the Democrats
Posted on 12/13/2010 2:29:28 PM PST by neverdem
In some sense, the Republicans have lost the narrative battle over the Bush “tax cuts.” Every administration sets tax rates: Carter raised, Reagan cut, Bush 41 raised, Clinton raised, and Bush 43 cut. “Cuts” is simply an arbitrary label of some part of the cycle apart from the whole. These are not proposals to cut taxes, simply to continue the existing Bush rates, which are now a decade old.
Second, the “millionaires and billionaires” label that has been attached to the 2 percent that were targeted to have their taxes raised is misleading, since 95 percent of these “rich” do not make a million dollars a year; the vast majority made between $250,000 and $500,000. Somehow, the guy who runs a restaurant or has a successful dental practice, often with great risks and responsibilities, and makes $300,000 becomes a greedy “millionaire and billionaire,” while such real billionaires as Warren Buffett and Bill Gates become models of generosity for wanting higher taxes.
Third, the relationship between cuts and spending was not communicated well enough. The country is in near-hysteria over whether we raise taxes on the top 2 percent to 39.5 percent, yet seems indifferent to the fact that over the last decade we doubled the budget. The Republican Congress between 2001 and 2006 was as profligate as any Democratic one. By 2004, despite the aftermath of the 2001 recession and the trillion-dollar hit from 9/11, federal income-tax rates were lowered and revenue soared — but not enough to make up for the jump in spending (thanks in part to such programs as No Child Left Behind, prescription-drug benefits, and the farm and highway bills). Had we simply kept federal spending at the rate of inflation, despite wars and the 9/11 aftermath, Bush would have had near-balanced budgets and the utility of across-the-board tax cuts would now be unquestioned.
In this regard, Clinton’s reference to tax hikes that balanced the budget is half-correct: The Clinton administration and its Republican Congress proved to be the most tight-fisted in memory, and by freezing spending, they ensured eventual budget surpluses. But if we double the budget within a decade from $1.9 trillion to $3.8, then the old arguments over whether reasonable tax cuts lead to greater revenue or drain the treasury become academic.
Last night watching our incoming speaker being led by his nose by a libtard, my wife yelled at the TV: tell her there is no problem with the level of taxes, there is a problem with the spending, we have a spending problem stupid.
My wife gets it. These clowns either don’t get it or don’t want to get it.
The Congress functions now like a corporation, the CEO, president, and the Board of Directors, legislature, pay no attention to the stockholders, us. There is no accountablity. It has become a criminal enterprise cartel evident by its pattern of racketeering behavior of lying to the people, self dealing, graft and obfuscation.
So you can tell liberals that the budget surplus of the Clinton years were the result of freezing spending. That will make their heads explode.
On the other hand, if a married couple sacrificed weekends and nights during their youth so that they could build up a business, or get an advanced degree, and their combined income happens to be above the moronic ‘Obama limit’, they will get punished for their hard work, no matter what they have in the bank or how many years they struggled before their ship came in.
The left ia overpopulated by lazy envious people of small character who want to punish those who worked harder than them. They are little better than petty thieves.
So these days, not raising taxes is considered a tax cut??
How long before they have us thanking them for not taking everything? Which, of course, would be a tax cut
That's it in a nutshell!
Let's face it: The vast majority of the nation simply loves this spending. It's as simple as that, whether we like it or not.
Apostle Claver tells the world how the real party of racism is the Democrats
“So these days, not raising taxes is considered a tax cut?”
It’s Bush’s fault.
Really this time.
He sold the tax deferments (no spending cuts) as “tax cuts,” and sold the deficits as “tax cuts” and asked that the “tax cuts” be made “permanent.” The terminology problem is much due to Bush’s rhetoric, and continues.
“Let’s face it: The vast majority of the nation simply loves this spending. It’s as simple as that, whether we like it or not.”
The vast majority do not and do not see any personal benefits.
Politicians love it because more spending means more power, more money to control, more campaign contributions, more “free speech bux” a.k.a., bribery.
But I am hopeful that the Tea Party will continue to shake our nation awake.
Apostle Claver tells the world how the real party of racism is the Democrats
ping
So the Democrats think it is OK to demonize the upper 2% rich. They supposedly have more money than they know what to do with. They count on the stupidity of the American public to fall for this class warfare tactic. I am surprised at the quiet acceptance of their rhetoric.
It is this upper 2% that provides the capitol for the producers of this country. Without that capitol, there would be no ability to finance wealth producers, which is how jobs are created.
I would like to see what Obama and his RAT congress did to the budget in the first two years of his administration.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.