sigh
Considering your propensity (and that of your esteemed colleagues) for arguing against things I’ve not actually said, I would have to agree with your assessment.
I say the opposite is true. Obama raised taxes by a lot (in the HCR bill) and people like you deny it, based on “defining the terms”.
I think Uncle Jocko is referring to this tax cut.
I’m aware of that tax cut, and have discussed it in a prior thread on these boards. But Obama also raised taxes. So people who tell pollsters that they think Obama raised taxes are correct, and people who think those polls reflect a problem of message and defining terms are themselves playing games (or ignorant).
Because they really just wanted their tax cut. how many times did you hear “the problem isn’t that we aren’t taxed enough, the problem is that we are spending too much” followed up by the question “so, what specifically would you cut” follwed by deafening silence or something really stupid like “earmarks” or something really vague like “waste fraud and abuse”
I wonder how Obama would react to a real hostage crisis. What would he have done during teh Iran hostage crisis? At this point he would have to nuke Iran to get anyone to take his ultimatums seriously.
I am sorely disappointed in him.
What do you think the net effect of these tax cuts/increases are?
Of course, using your own cite with slightly adjusted parameters, we see that even before Obama took office, the ratio was already at 10%.
Ooops.
Over the long term, a big increase. The tax cut part was a temporary stimulus. The tax increases were permanent.
Furthermore, this is such a fucking dishonest talking point, it deserves to be pursued a bit further. Since you chose the measure, Shodan, let’s take a closer look at the Deficit/GDP ratio, notably how it has changed over time.
From when Bush took office to when he left, the Deficit/GDP ratio went from negative (that would be Clinton’s surplus) to near 10%!
From when Obama took office to now, the Deficit/GDP ratio has gone from 9.9% (where Bush left it) to 10.7%. Not even one percentage point growth.
And now let me be as dishonest as you, Shodan. If we consider the years from 2009 (when Obama took office) and project into 2014, we see the ratio drop from 10.7% down to below 4%!
Using your own cite and measure, it looks like Obama is doing a stellar job on the deficit. Clearly you agree, right?
There are a lot of cuts that could be made. The argument for raising taxes shouldn’t be “but we are already spending too much, we want to spend more”
As has been pointed out here before, cuts need to be made across the entire landscape of the federal government:
Defense, SSN, Welfare (and other handout programs)
Let’s start there and we can move on to other places.
The question isn’t really where do we need to make cuts, it’s who is going to take the hit for making the necessary ones.
Your questions make presumptions. The Teawhatever party doesn’t have much in the way of known conservative ideals. Neither does the Republican party, and the Democrats doesn’t hold many liberal ideals either. Actually, all of those groups seem to be divorced from any consistent principle except the lust for power.
Personally, none of these parties, or any I’ve ever heard of represents me. And if you find the Republicans representing you now, then your political ideology must simply be Obama and Democrats are bad, and all tax cuts are good. Someone represented by the Democratic party would have a political ideology of getting steam-rolled by Republicans, and for the Tea types, well they haven’t actually done anything, ever.
Sure it can be.
If our taxes were only 5%, we would not be able to fund the minimum amount of roads, military, courts, and regulatory bodies needed for a healthy modern nation, no matter what your political perspective.
However, it could be your opinion that if we just raised the expenditures to an equivalent of a 15% rate without raising taxes, then the final result would be worse than if we hadn’t raised taxes, because the increased utility is more than made up for by the staggering debt incurred. So it would be preferable to raise taxes and raise spending in that situation. Such a situation could be fairly described as “we are already spending too much, we want to spend more”.
If you agree that the basic needs of the nation require more than a token amount of taxes, but that in the long run, huge deficits can be worse than high taxes, then you’re just arguing over degrees.
If you felt as if you are spending too much (which a lot of folks at this point do), then it holds that spending more than you do currently would not be the ideal solution (hell, it wouldn’t even be a thought)
I’m sure we could agree on a lot of ‘necessary spending’ but I feel that most of the necessary spending has long since jumped the shark and now government is just growing for the sake of growing. Politicians want more power and control (for the Pubs, its about money) (for the Dems, they want to save the 'stupid people from themselves and money)
The fact that any entitlement package/defense contract/whatever is ‘off the table’ just goes to show you how selfish people are across the board (and this holds true for both parties)
Cutting everything logical would not touch the deficits. You have to get more revenue. That is the obvious and apparent truth. Sorry that righties will not face it.
Where are these ‘logical’ cuts you speak and why haven’t they been cut?
Ok, you go first.
I haven’t fallen for that one in a long time. She never did show me hers.
It has been done. I would however suggest we get out of iraq and Afghanistan. Since our war budget is equal to the next 26 nations, it would be easy to find more. But the sad fact is no cuts will have any impact. you have to raise revenue. Shutting down the Bush tax cuts will kill over 25 % of the deficits. That is a good start.
I almost forgot to ask but you got a cite for that?
After all these years, you still crack me up.