Breaking up with Norquist

[boston62]

Originally Posted by Uncle Salty

Been drinking the Kool-Aid eh? The oil company "subsidies" that Obama and other Democrats campaigned on are actually tax deductions that other manufacturers, mining companies and businesses get. Oil Change International is an organization focused on exposing fossil fuel subsidies. On their site they have a page on fossil fuel subsidies. The summary of oil-related subsidies in the U.S. for 2010 totals $4.5 billion for those greedy oil companies. The single largest expenditure is just over $1 billion for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is designed to protect the U.S. from oil shortages. The second largest category is tax exemptions to farmers for for farm fuel. The third largest category, $570 million for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. This program is classified as a petroleum subsidy because it artificially reduces the price of fuel, which helps oil companies sell more of it. Those three programs account for $2.5 billion a year in “oil subsidies." Meanwhile the Obama administration has doled out many times that amount on wind and solar companies. Al Gore invested in many of these companies and made huge profits. The Democrats sold us a lie while giving our money to their friends. That's OK though, Republicans do it too. That's why were in such a mess.

2.5 billion? Do they need it? We sure the hell could use it right now.

[boston62]

Originally Posted by Uncle Salty

I was once an advocate of a flat tax but I don't support that idea now. The people that are truly struggling to make it shouldn't pay the same as wealthier citizens. But we should not support them with programs such as EITC either. We have created programs that promote dependence on the government. That not only takes tax money out of the system but more importantly it keeps the low wage earners poor. Poor people don't spend and that doesn't help our economy. We shouldn't subsidize people to remain poor, we should encourage them to be successful.

We don't need to tax the hell out of any group of citizens to keep our government functional. Income taxes were originally implemented to fund war. Now taxes are wasted on many things which suppress free enterprise, opportunity and success. Our government has assumed responsibilities and gained powers that are beyond the scope of our founders intentions. The more programs and power they have, the more corruption and waste we get.

I don't know how a family of four working for $12.00 an hour, paying utilities, medical, food, and auto ins. Come to Florida we have many jobs here, but less than $12.00 per hour. People are taking them, but let's face it, they get sick, they have no choice but go to the Dr. They can't pay, so we do. Which is fine by me..

[Uncle Salty]

Originally Posted by boston62

2.5 billion? Do they need it? We sure the hell could use it right now.

Of course we need it. But the oil companies are getting tax deductions that other companies get. Obama didn't campaign on that though. He needed a "bad guy" to demonize so he could appear to be the hero of the poor and down trodden while giving away much more to his buddies. Do we need the 12.5 billion we gave to wind and solar? Yep, I'd say we do.

[boston62]

Originally Posted by Uncle Salty

Of course we need it. But the oil companies are getting tax deductions that other companies get. Obama didn't campaign on that though. He needed a "bad guy" to demonize so he could appear to be the hero of the poor and down trodden while giving away much more to his buddies. Do we need the 12.5 billion we gave to wind and solar? Yep, I'd say we do.

Yes he did do that, and it worked... We have to get away from fossil fuel, what else can we go to, please don't say nuclear. Here in Florida we have a big solar site which is working out great according to the Gov Scott.

[Uncle Salty]

Originally Posted by boston62

Yes he did do that, and it worked... We have to get away from fossil fuel, what else can we go to, please don't say nuclear. Here in Florida we have a big solar site which is working out great according to the Gov Scott.

As long as citizens buy into the premise that government subsidies of private companies are OK as long as it's the "right" cause, we'll be giving our money to whoever the government wants to give it to. We would have been better served by having polititians signing a pledge to adhear to the Constitution rather than not raise taxes.

[Uncle Salty]

Originally Posted by thrasher

All that break rank with Norquist will be labeled RINOs by the rightwingnuts. I'm not surprised that so many are breaking rank... common sense takes over at some point.

Common sense in DC? Please. We wouldn't need higher taxes if they were serving with our best interests in mind. They are looking out for their friends by giving away our money.

[claytp1]

Originally Posted by bill corkey

Yeah. and Europe is such a financial success story.

Can't say I was advocating being like Europe, Germany is however trying to keep it's house in order. The point I was trying to make that seems to have been missed is the income tax rate.

If you make north of 8000 Euros (approximately $10K), you start paying income tax at 14% on any amount over that. That's in addition to VAT and other taxes.

[claytp1]

Originally Posted by DJW

The pubs will have to agree to raise taxes, and the dems will have to agree to cut entitlements.

One side has apparently made the first move - agreeing to a tax increase...as for the other party of "no"...well <crickets> <crickets>

It's the same deal that was on the table the last time...the one that the Dems walked away from. In fact it's the same deal that Ronald Reagan made with the Dems 30 years ago...cut spending and raise taxes...only after agreeing to the tax increase the spending cuts never happened.

History repeats itself, and Americans never learn from it.

Two staunch liberals, Senators Tom Harkin of Iowa and John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, said in a letter to Mr. Obama that he should “reject changes to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security that would cut benefits, shift costs to states, alter the structure of these critical programs, or force vulnerable populations to bear the burden of deficit reduction.”

More than 40 House members, led by the Congressional Progressive Caucus, declare in a resolution that any deal on taxes and spending “should not cut Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security benefits.”

Whole story: http://www.cnbc.com/id/49978807

[Lefty]

Originally Posted by DJW

The pubs will have to agree to raise taxes, and the dems will have to agree to cut entitlements.

One side has apparently made the first move - agreeing to a tax increase...as for the other party of "no"...well <crickets> <crickets>

It's the same deal that was on the table the last time...the one that the Dems walked away from. In fact it's the same deal that Ronald Reagan made with the Dems 30 years ago...cut spending and raise taxes...only after agreeing to the tax increase the spending cuts never happened.

History repeats itself, and Americans never learn from it.

Good sound bites, but like most wingnut sound bites a grain of truth is stretched over a large area it doesn't really cover. Here's what's really happened (as of yesterday anyway). The pubs offered to reduce/limit/whatever deductions, which in their minds is not a tax increase which of course it is IF the dems put medicare, medicaid and social security on the table. Dems are willing to go with medicaid and medicare on the table but not SS. Personally I want to see the largest entity on the government teat, the military industrial complex, known by the pubs as defense, on the table. Like that will happen.

Essentially both sides have indicated they will discuss reform of some, but not all, of their sacred cows. The "crickets" comment, the usual misleading bull$hit propaganda from Danny Boy.

[Uncle Salty]

Originally Posted by Lefty

Good sound bites, but like most wingnut sound bites a grain of truth is stretched over a large area it doesn't really cover. Here's what's really happened (as of yesterday anyway). The pubs offered to reduce/limit/whatever deductions, which in their minds is not a tax increase which of course it is IF the dems put medicare, medicaid and social security on the table. Dems are willing to go with medicaid and medicare on the table but not SS. Personally I want to see the largest entity on the government teat, the military industrial complex, known by the pubs as defense, on the table. Like that will happen.

Essentially both sides have indicated they will discuss reform of some, but not all, of their sacred cows. The "crickets" comment, the usual misleading bull$hit propaganda from Danny Boy.

It would be amazing to see how much could be cut from "defense" if we would change our position on defending our country vs policing the world.

[James]

How much could we cut from NASA? Do we really need to spend billions of dollars right now sniffing dirt on Mars?

[boston62]

Originally Posted by Hamilton

The U.S. Treasury increased the net debt of the United States $24 billion on the day after Thanksgiving.

I have no interest in paying a penny more in taxes to those spendaholics. In fact, I look for ways on how to pay less.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/blac...r-thanksgiving

There won't be any ways, loop holes have to be closed, everyone wants to get this under control, the cliff will do just that with spending cuts and taxes. I see no other way, kicking the can down the road isn't going to work...

[boston62]

Originally Posted by Uncle Salty

It would be amazing to see how much could be cut from "defense" if we would change our position on defending our country vs policing the world.

Billions.... Need to stop giving foreign aid to other Countries, like Pakistan...

[James]

Originally Posted by boston62

Billions.... Need to stop giving foreign aid to other Countries, like Pakistan...

Then how do you get supplies into Afghanistan?

[RGRider]

Originally Posted by James

Then how do you get supplies into Afghanistan?

It's time to leave there anyway.