[quote]As for heating, yes, that is a problem, but have you not heard of LIHEAP? The government is paying a lot of money to help families heat their home. And not just those on welfare, either.[/quote] [B]Yes that takes care of the problem-- What is you answer for $3.00 plus gas?[/B]
Reply By: Island DogPosted: Thursday, December 20, 2007Why do you keep claiming to know what the "majority" want? You have absolutely nothing to back your statements up with. The 2006 Election for one and the polls that clearly show there is little support for Bush and the GOP policies! J
Reply By: terpfan1980Posted: Thursday, December 20, 2007Those bogus salaries result in the public being OVER charged for what ever these companies provide the consumer!More bull-excrement. The public isn't over-charged for anything. They may pay more than they 'had to' because they desire a product too much, but no one is twist
Reply By: terpfan1980Posted: Thursday, December 20, 2007Those bogus salaries result in the public being OVER charged for what ever these companies provide the consumer!More bull-excrement. The public isn't over-charged for anything. They may pay more than they 'had to' because they desire a product too much, but no one is twist
Reply By: DraginolPosted: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 Not without cutting things that are essential. In addition it will take about $400 Billion to balance the budget without using the Surplus in Social Sec
[quote]Regardless, what we do know is that the highest income earners are paying the bulk of the taxes. Yet you think they are responsible for the deficit that was largely produced because their money was given to people who earn very little (and hence are taxed very little). It's just baffling logic. Why not simply quit giving money to these non-earners and balance the budget and be done with it?[/quote] What we know is that the tax cut to the wealthy was predicated on the argument
Reply By: danielostPosted: Wednesday, December 19, 2007dreg. your idea is cuts across the board. gene's idea is cutting down on pork spending There is no way we can cut across the board. There are areas that will require MORE money-- The Military, Border Security, Energy, interest on the debt and
Now if you feel so compassionate to the poor, feel free to open your wallet and help out. I have!! I believe the wealthy must give up a tax cut they did not deserve to help pay our bills and help those that need help!
I have shown you many times in the past that the $300 billion can be brought in through spending cuts. I have explicitly stated the areas we could cut in the past. Not without cutting things that are essential. In addition it will take about $400 Billion to balance the budget without using the Surplus
[quote]Literally a quarter of the budget is dedicated to essentially transfering wealth from the most productive to the least productive. We spend more on welfare programs than defense and interest on the debt combined. [/quote] Just because a person has a high income does not mean they are MORE productive. Look at the salaries of CEO's whose companies have lost money or performed poorly. Look at paying baseball players $200 Million. That has NOTHING to do with productivity. Income se
Reply By: terpfan1980Posted: Tuesday, December 18, 2007When the far left like Gene are ready to start trimming the welfare state, then I'll take his calls for a balanced budget seriously.For the health of all involved, nothing that Gene says should ever be taken seriously. It would just lead to fiscal ruin and a socialist state
Reply By: DraginolPosted: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 I do not like taxes anymore then anyone else. However I know we can not continue to pile up the debt and the interest that adds to the Federal Budget. W
Reply By: Island DogPosted: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 When you make stupid statements that middle income taxpayers do not pay much in taxes you show just how little you know. Relative to their income midd
Reply By: toothache's revengePosted: Wednesday, December 19, 2007i think you have moved from being an idiot, to actually being mentally challenged gene.everything the government touches turns to crap. look at social security, then ask yourself if you really want the gov. to run healthcare. the biggest problem with yo
Reply By: danielostPosted: Wednesday, December 19, 2007the above numbers look like 50% to me Better look again. Last year Cheney had an income of about $1.7 Million and paid 23% not 32% in Federal Income Tax. The payroll taxes for Social Security cuts off at about $100,000 and a person with an income
Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 Relative to their income middle income taxpayers pay a significant amount in taxes! (sigh) Do you know what a percentage IS, Co
Reply By: Island DogPosted: Wednesday, December 19, 2007Don't ya just love how gene knows how everyone spends their money? It is called Economics. There are many studies and data that clearly shows that the higher the income the less of each added dollar is spent. When you make stupid statements that
Reply By: DraginolPosted: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 Tax cuts to middle income taxpayers are far more effective to stimulate the economy then to the wealthy. With all the tax cuts to the wealthy we have now,
Here are two facts. $8 of the $9 Trillion dollars of debt was added while a Republican Conservative was President. Reagan and GWB are responsible for $7 Trillion dollars of the $9 trillion of debt. [B]Please do not tell me about the democrats as BIG SPENDERS![/B]
But your issue had to do with helping the economy. Tax cuts, especially for the wealthy, help the economy. That's not a matter of opinion. That is self-evident fact. Tax cuts to middle income taxpayers are far more effective to stimulate the economy then to the wealthy. With all the tax cuts to the
Reply By: Island DogPosted: Tuesday, December 18, 2007I notice gene you ignore the question posed in my original article and start with your usual nonsense about the tax cuts. If you are interested in balancing the budget, why would you support someone like the democrats I mentioned above, who will massively increase spending on
Reply By: terpfan1980Posted: Tuesday, December 18, 2007The Bush tax cuts from 2001 -2010 will cut federal revenue by $2.3 Trillion.*cough* bull-excrement *cough*It has been proven time and again that thanks to Bush's tax cuts revenue for the federal government increased much more rapidly. Bush's tax cuts resulted in increased fe
Reply By: Island DogPosted: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 The shift in wealth from the middle income to the wealthy that is the result of the Bush Tax Cuts has done MORE to fuel Class warfare then anything!</TD
The Bush tax cuts from 2001 -2010 will cut federal revenue by $2.3 Trillion. (www.cjt.org/pdf/gwbdata.pdf) 70% will go to the wealthy. During that same period the National Debt will increase about $5 Trillion. Thus, the increase in the debt is about 1/2 because of lost tax revenue and 1/2 because of increased spending. When you look at what we have increased spending on you will find most of the increase is for Interest on the Growing Debt, the I
It will affect everyone, not just the class warfare you seem to advocate. The shift in wealth from the middle income to the wealthy that is the result of the Bush Tax Cuts has done MORE to fuel Class warfare then anything!
JoeUser Forums