Just freeze spending growth, deficit problem solved. But that wouldn't achieve the confiscation & redistribution of wealth so it's unacceptable to Gene.

No, you said there is little support for the GOP. If there was as little support as you insist, it wouldn't matter how you gerrymandered it, the GOP would always lose.

and the biggest supporters for this are the democrats.

Reply By: DaiwaPosted: Thursday, December 20, 2007Just freeze spending growth, deficit problem solved. But that wouldn't achieve the confiscation & redistribution of wealth so it's unacceptable to Gene.

That is an idea that refuse to recognize the realities of today. Here are the reasons that will not be possible:

Interest on the debt will increase as the debt increases.

The VA will require large increases to treat the Iraq war veterans.

We must replace hundreds of billions of equipment that was destroyed in Iraq.

We are expanding our military by almost 100,000 and that will increase the budget.

We need to increase the Border Patrol and Coast Guard to protect our country.

Most areas in the budget are comprised of salaries. Given the inflation, those salaries must increase and that will increase most budget departments.

As the Baby Boomers retire the Social Security and Medicare obligations will increase.

Those that claim the solution to our fiscal problems is to not increase spending live in a state of denial from the facts and nature of the budget itself. Ending the Iraq war and ending all pork would help but again even that will not offset those areas that I have listed above that will increase!

Here's one for your polls gene....


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton trails five top Republican presidential contenders in general election match-ups, a drop in support from this summer, according to a poll

We will talk in November 2008!

you mean your going to stop bashing bush until november. THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reply By: danielostPosted: Thursday, December 20, 2007 We will talk in November 2008! you mean your going to stop bashing bush until november. THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That depends on what Bush does between now and January 20, 2009!

no it doesn't you said we would talk november 2008.

Reply By: danielostPosted: Thursday, December 20, 2007no it doesn't you said we would talk november 2008.

About the election results!

You really think so?  If we put it up for a referendum, you think that the "vast majority" would want a quarter of their tax dollars going to welfare?

By that rationale, you should just sit down and be quiet about tax increases since the "vast majority" are against tax increases -- even on "the rich".

Reply | Edit | DeleteReply By: DraginolPosted: Thursday, December 20, 2007 What I consider essential is what the vast majority consider ESSENTIAL. You really think so? If we put it up for a referendum, you think that the "vast majority" would want a quarter of their tax dollars going to welfare?By that rationale, you should just sit down and be quiet about tax increases since the "vast majority" are against tax increases -- even on "the rich".

Our Budget is $2.9 Trillion Dollars and welfare is only a SMALL fraction of that amount. Where do you come up with $750 Billion in Welfare? That is what 1/4 of the budget would be.

This year's budget in pie chart form (courtesy of the CBO). 

Income security and health are the portions that are welfare. Income security is 14% and health is 11%. That's 25%.  And I am not countins social security and medicare.

The federal government spent around $50 billion last year just on food stamps.

All the above assumes no economic growth and no increase in federal revenues, which we know to be false assumptions, even without increases in tax rates. Federal revenues exploded with the tax cuts. The one fatal flaw in all your arguments is the underlying assumption that the economy is strictly a zero-sum game. It isn't. We hear all kinds of arguments about how this sector of the economy or that sector is "eating up" too much of our GDP - a notion that is completely bogus, because the money goes where the economic decisions of countless individuals send it and it gets recycled in the form of salaries, capital investments, you name it, not down some rat hole to just disappear.

As you can see here, the federal government is collecting more money from its citizens than ever before.  Clearly, if we have a deficit, it is only because spending has outpaced the rapid income growth.

After the tax cuts, the income the government took in rapidly jumped.

Indeed.  As you can see, the tax cut greatly increase tax revenue from companies.

In addition:

As you can see, by 2000, the federal government was taking record amounts of money from individuals, even when adjusted for inflation. It's only slightly lower today.

In other words, all of Gene's premises are false. There is no justification for a tax increase. The government is simply spending too much money.

Take a look at this:

We are paying too much in taxes already.  What we should be demanding are more tax cuts to get us back to where we have been historically.

We are paying too much in taxes already. What we should be demanding are more tax cuts to get us back to where we have been historically.

If that were true we would not have $9 Trillion in debt! Clinton did not increase tax rates. The last tax increase was Bush 41-- Read my Lips tax increase!

In other words, all of Gene's premises are false. There is no justification for a tax increase. The government is simply spending too much money.

That is in your opinion. The Congress does not agree and passed the spending at a higher level and then failed to collect taxes equal to what we agreed to spend. When you do not have enough money to pay for what you agree to spend, you look for a better paying job or get a second job to increase you income to cover what you agreed to spend. That for the Government means a TAX INCREASE!

why do you keep trying to get this lie by us.

bush 41 raised taxes on his way out of office.


clinton raised taxes one month later and made them retroactive. i don't know where you were but i was in the country when he did it.


he even made a speach about how hard he had tried not to have to raise taxes. the hardest he had ever worked. he was only in office 5 days.



of course that retroactive part is probable what has you confused.

so when you spend money at home.


you spend what you want and then go and tell who ever is paying/giving you money. that this is how much you need this month.

Uh, most normal people cut their expenses first.

Funny how you advocate this now, when your usual response is people should seek help from the government.  As was mentioned, cutting your expenses is the first and smartest thing to do.

Reply By: danielostPosted: Thursday, December 20, 2007 That is in your opinion. The Congress does not agree and passed the spending at a higher level and then failed to collect taxes equal to what we agreed to spend. so when you spend money at home. you spend what you want and then go and tell who ever is paying/giving you money. that this is how much you need this month.

NO when you choose to spend MORE then you make you look for a better paying job OR get a second job to provide the money needed to meet your bills. What Bush and the GOP have done is spend and put the shortfall on Credit so we can all pay interest to countries like China. That is a GREAT plan if the objective is to go bankrupt!

No, you keep telling us when we choose to spend more go to the government and beg. Why the change of heart?

Wow, no wonder you're poor.