Hypocrisy, Hypocrisy, Hypocrisy

from JoeUser Forums


I have placed my Blogs on JoeUser into a file and in that process looked at many of the comments and complaints about the increased spending, welfare, pork and taxes people posted in response to my Blogs. When I took a look at just what parts of the Federal Budget have increased since 2001, the word that is front and center about all the budget and tax complaints is HYPOCRISY!

The largest increase in our spending since 2001 is not on pork or welfare. It is not on the administrative costs or waist. Below are the things that have increased or that are about to show the largest increase:

Interest on the debt. UP $150 Billion; by 2009 will be up $200 Billion per year.

The Iraq War. Up about $140 Billion and this will end when we end the war.

VA Administration. That budget is up 82% and will spend $700 Billion more.

Military Equipment. Over the next 10 years we will need to spend $200 Billion More.

Our problem is not the increased amount we spend on Medicaid or pork projects. It is not what we spend on education. It is not even all the waist in the various government projects. Every one of the above is the DIRECT result of George W. Bush and the GOP controlled Congress since 2001. All this increased spending is because of the financial and tax policies we have adopted and to fight a war that has not made America any safer from an attack by the radical terrorists who hate us. For all those who hate to pay taxes, you will be happy to know you will be paying far more in taxes for decades to come because of GWB. The legacy of President Bush will be the cost of his policies and will continue long into the future. We are still paying the interest on the added debt Reagan created in the 1980’s.


I would like to propose a tax credit for all those Americans who did not vote for George W. Bush. Let’s say a 10% credit if you did not vote for him in 2000 and a 50% credit if you did not vote for him in 2004. Fair is fair. Why should those of us who did not support Bush and his policies be responsible to pay for them? To pay for the proposed tax credits we should add a surtax on all that voted for Bush since they are responsible for the higher taxes because of electing him president!
politics
33,215 views 92 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
You just keep spewing the same tired talking points with new headlines, broken record that you are. That "file" could be condensed to a couple of lines & nothing would be lost.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: DaiwaPosted: Saturday, December 22, 2007You just keep spewing the same tired talking points with new headlines, broken record that you are. That "file" could be condensed to a couple of lines & nothing would be lost.


I hope you will enjoy paying for Bush. I will not!
Galactic Civilizations IV
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hypocrisy, Hypocrisy, Hypocrisy
End of quote


this is gene.


cut spending but lets hand out money for health insurance


cut taxes but raise it on the rich.


what ever else.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Over the next 10 years we will need to spend $200 Billion More.
End of quote


we would have to spend this any ways to upgrade.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

You completely ignore the fact that 25% of our budget is currently dedicated to welfare (not medicare or social security, just plain old welfare).

That's more than the military or interest on the debt.

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: danielostPosted: Saturday, December 22, 2007
Hypocrisy, Hypocrisy, Hypocrisy
this is gene.cut spending but lets hand out money for health insurancecut taxes but raise it on the rich. what ever else.


Balance the Budget by cutting pork, ending the Iraq war, by returning to the tax rates for the wealthy in effect during the 1990's and enforce existing tax laws to increase collections by going after tax cheats.

Simplify the existing tax system and end the special interest tax benefits.

Begin repaying the Debt at a rate of about $300 Billion per year.

Any new spending programs, including health, mortgage help etc MUST be paid for with other cuts or added revenue.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

...and he continues to ignore that the things he mentions would not actually balance the budget.

How about balance the budget by cutting the welfare (25% of the budget) instead of demanding that I pay more so that the parasite class can keep sucking at the government teet?

 

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: DraginolPosted: Saturday, December 22, 2007...and he continues to ignore that the things he mentions would not actually balance the budget.


Let’s take a look:

The tax cuts in 2007 were $250 billion and 70% went to the wealthy. That would add $175 Billion.

Iraq is another $140 Billion.

Pork is about $25 Billion.

We should be able to collect another $200 Billion with better enforcement.

Eliminating the special interest loop holes would provide billions more.


That is about $550 Billion and without the loop holes. We should be able to exceed $600 Billion. That would balance the budget and provide several hundred billion for debt repayment.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
The tax cuts in 2007 were $250 billion and 70% went to the wealthy. That would add $175 Billion.
End of quote



the rich pay 80% taxes looks to me like they got shorted.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
We should be able to collect another $200 Billion with better enforcement.
End of quote




wishful thinking
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Eliminating the special interest loop holes would provide billions more.
End of quote


won't happen. this would affect those setting in those seats in washington.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
That is about $550 Billion and without the loop holes. We should be able to exceed $600 Billion. That would balance the budget and provide several hundred billion for debt repayment.
End of quote




see no tax increase.


Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Iraq is another $140 Billion.
End of quote


this was an unforeseen expense.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: danielostPosted: Saturday, December 22, 2007
Iraq is another $140 Billion.
this was an unforeseen expense.


It was an optional war and in the past when we went to war we passed a tax increase to pay for that added expense. After 5 years of war the expense is not UNFORESEEN!






Reply By: danielostPosted: Saturday, December 22, 2007
We should be able to collect another $200 Billion with better enforcement.
wishful thinking



Not if you have the IRS agents needed to go after people who are not paying their taxes. Many small business owners are getting away with murder!
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: danielostPosted: Saturday, December 22, 2007
The tax cuts in 2007 were $250 billion and 70% went to the wealthy. That would add $175 Billion.
the rich pay 80% taxes looks to me like they got shorted.


They are not paying as much as they did in the 1990's. I also do not believe they pay 80% of the taxes. The rich have too many special loop holes to get out of paying taxes. Look at Cheney-- 23% on an income of $1.7Million! POOR BABY! Yes he is OVER taxed- WHAT BS!
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
the first year Clinton was in office. he paid 18% this was after his tax increase and after his deductibles. i remember this because that is what they withhold from my paycheck that year. yes i got most of it back. but it was also the first year that i got most of it back. before that i got all of it back.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: danielostPosted: Sunday, December 23, 2007the first year Clinton was in office. he paid 18% this was after his tax increase and after his deductibles. i remember this because that is what they withhold from my paycheck that year. yes i got most of it back. but it was also the first year that i got most of it back. before that i got all of it back.


The issue is that to claim a person with an income of a million or more that paid 23% is too high is BS especially when we are adding to the National debt.

If we had paid off the debt and had a balanced budget and there was a REAL SURPLUS, then cut taxes. We were not even close to that in 2001 and today we are even further from being debt free!
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
The issue is that to claim a person with an income of a million or more that paid 23% is too high is BS especially when we are adding to the National debt.
End of quote


You're citing one individual in the class you hate - trying to imply that all the "rich" have similar tax returns doesn't change the reality that they don't. Just another example of how you demagogue issues regardless of "truth."
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: DaiwaPosted: Sunday, December 23, 2007
The issue is that to claim a person with an income of a million or more that paid 23% is too high is BS especially when we are adding to the National debt.
You're citing one individual in the class you hate - trying to imply that all the "rich" have similar tax returns doesn't change the reality that they don't. Just another example of how you demagogue issues regardless of "truth."


Bush had a similar tax rate with his income of $800,000. The reality is that the claim that the wealthy are overtaxed does not hold water. There is NO reason why we can not eliminate the tax cuts for the top 10% and increase the tax revenue by about $175 Billion per year. Add the savings from ending the Iraq War and you have over $300 Billion.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush had a similar tax rate with his income of $800,000.
End of quote


The issue is that to claim a person with an income of a million or more that paid 23% is too high
End of quote




now your saying that bush payed to much in taxes since he only made half as much as Chaney.

keep digging gene lets see how big this hole can get. you know the one you just dug.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
now your saying that bush payed to much in taxes since he only made half as much as Chaney.


No Bush paid about the same %. Bush paid less in dollars but they both did not pay a large % in taxes.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
you are only talking federal taxes.


what about state, county, city, sales, property, and what ever else i have forgotten.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush had a similar tax rate with his income of $800,000.
End of quote


Again, 2 examples are not representative of the class you hate. Otherwise, there would be no way for the top 10% of income earners to pay what we know they are paying - nearly 90% of federal revenues. Talk about not holding water.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: danielostPosted: Sunday, December 23, 2007you are only talking federal taxes. what about state, county, city, sales, property, and what ever else i have forgotten.


Every post I have made has been about Federal Taxes and returning to the old rates. We all pay local and state taxes. The truth is that as the Federal Government cuts things like Medicaid or adds requirements like "No Child Left Behind" with no money to pay for them they drive up local and state taxes. When states cut funding for education they drive up the local taxes. It is all a game. The Fed and then the states try to find ways to make it appear as if that are either cutting taxes or holding the line. However, if the cost to provide the services increases, some one must pay the Bill. Unlike the Fed, States and local government must balance their budgets. That is why local and state taxes often increase. I can recall when Christie Whitman was elected Governor of NJ she tried the GOP cut the taxes game at the state level in NJ. The local Real Estate taxes went through the roof and after she left office it was found that the local taxes had increased MORE then the state Taxes dropped.

At all levels of Government, the FIRST step is to agree on WHAT services are to be provided and determine what those services will cost. Step TWO is to FUND those services with taxes that recognize the ability to pay and the fact that low and middle income taxpayers have LESS ability to pay higher taxes if that is what is needed to balance the budgets. There may be times when we must say to those that are making the BIG BUCKS that they will have to PONEY UP a little more. It will not be the end of the world for them even though no one LIKES to pay more in taxes. The wealthy should be thankful that have so much that they can pay a little more without causing their families any harm. BR>


Reply By: DaiwaPosted: Sunday, December 23, 2007
Bush had a similar tax rate with his income of $800,000.
Again, 2 examples are not representative of the class you hate. Otherwise, there would be no way for the top 10% of income earners to pay what we know they are paying - nearly 90% of federal revenues. Talk about not holding water.



The top 10% does NOT pay 90 % of the taxes. In fact the wealthy have most of the loop holes to avoid paying taxes and many small business owners who the wealthy are are cheating on their taxes by padding expenses and not recognizing income. The little guy does not have the ability to cheat on their taxes the way many wealthy business people do. I am not saying all business people cheat on their taxes but I know too many are doing just that. Bush has CUT the number of IRS agents which has reduced the enforcement actions of the IRS! WHY? At a time when we need more money to balance the budget, Bush takes actions to enable more people to avoid paying their taxes and allow badly need tax revenue to go uncollected! Proper enforcement is NOT a tax increase!!!!!!!<
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
merry Christmas gene