Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
surveyor
Participant[quote=afx114]Those are very valid points and I agree with most of them. But please refer back to the graphs I posted on page 2 of this thread. I still haven’t heard anyone explain the logic behind the claim that our taxes are too high. They aren’t — both historically and comparatively speaking. Even if we raised them 5% across the board.[/quote]
Most people think that taxes are high enough. Perhaps they have not been historically high. But do you really want to raise taxes at this time? With the economy in such bad shape? History shows they tried this before and it didn’t work (Smoot-Hawley anyone?). If you raise tax rates 5%, will you be willing to accept the x% rise in unemployment? My answer is no. Perhaps that is the attitude of the Tea Party.
Maybe they are too high NOW because of the economic situation. Maybe they are too high NOW because the government is contemplating raising them. Maybe they are too high NOW because business are reluctant to increase their hiring.
So while a time based graph is nice, you have to recognize the current conditions and place them in proper context. I think you’ll agree with me that things haven’t been this bad in a long time.
Participant[quote=afx114]Those are very valid points and I agree with most of them. But please refer back to the graphs I posted on page 2 of this thread. I still haven’t heard anyone explain the logic behind the claim that our taxes are too high. They aren’t — both historically and comparatively speaking. Even if we raised them 5% across the board.[/quote]
Most people think that taxes are high enough. Perhaps they have not been historically high. But do you really want to raise taxes at this time? With the economy in such bad shape? History shows they tried this before and it didn’t work (Smoot-Hawley anyone?). If you raise tax rates 5%, will you be willing to accept the x% rise in unemployment? My answer is no. Perhaps that is the attitude of the Tea Party.
Maybe they are too high NOW because of the economic situation. Maybe they are too high NOW because the government is contemplating raising them. Maybe they are too high NOW because business are reluctant to increase their hiring.
So while a time based graph is nice, you have to recognize the current conditions and place them in proper context. I think you’ll agree with me that things haven’t been this bad in a long time.
Participant[quote=afx114]Those are very valid points and I agree with most of them. But please refer back to the graphs I posted on page 2 of this thread. I still haven’t heard anyone explain the logic behind the claim that our taxes are too high. They aren’t — both historically and comparatively speaking. Even if we raised them 5% across the board.[/quote]
Most people think that taxes are high enough. Perhaps they have not been historically high. But do you really want to raise taxes at this time? With the economy in such bad shape? History shows they tried this before and it didn’t work (Smoot-Hawley anyone?). If you raise tax rates 5%, will you be willing to accept the x% rise in unemployment? My answer is no. Perhaps that is the attitude of the Tea Party.
Maybe they are too high NOW because of the economic situation. Maybe they are too high NOW because the government is contemplating raising them. Maybe they are too high NOW because business are reluctant to increase their hiring.
So while a time based graph is nice, you have to recognize the current conditions and place them in proper context. I think you’ll agree with me that things haven’t been this bad in a long time.
Participant[quote=SK in CV]If that is really the main issue of the tea partiers, where were they for the 8 years before this administration, when congress and the administration ran up debt, and spent and grew the size of government faster than any before them? As the deficit grew by 3 to 4 times what it had been during the previous 8 years and 50% higher than every other administration before, besides Bush the senior’s 4 years in office.[/quote]
Perhaps most people weren’t listening.
“As to Bush’s non-defense, non-homeland security domestic spending, people did complain — lots of them and frequently. Why isn’t this more widely recognized? When a conservative criticizes Rush Limbaugh, that’s news. The left hates Limbaugh. When a conservative criticizes Bush’s spending, that’s not news. The left loves domestic spending. For liberals, Bush’s No Child Left Behind program “wasn’t fully funded.” The prescription bill for seniors contained a “doughnut hole,” which made it insufficiently generous.
Conservatives, pundits and talk show hosts routinely blasted Bush for domestic spending. In 2003, after the passage of the Medicare prescription bill, a member of The Heritage Foundation said, “The president isn’t showing leadership, and conservatives are angry.” Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, said, “The conservative, free-market base in America is rightly in revolt over this bill.”
(article by Larry Elder, in Washington Post)
Participant[quote=SK in CV]If that is really the main issue of the tea partiers, where were they for the 8 years before this administration, when congress and the administration ran up debt, and spent and grew the size of government faster than any before them? As the deficit grew by 3 to 4 times what it had been during the previous 8 years and 50% higher than every other administration before, besides Bush the senior’s 4 years in office.[/quote]
Perhaps most people weren’t listening.
“As to Bush’s non-defense, non-homeland security domestic spending, people did complain — lots of them and frequently. Why isn’t this more widely recognized? When a conservative criticizes Rush Limbaugh, that’s news. The left hates Limbaugh. When a conservative criticizes Bush’s spending, that’s not news. The left loves domestic spending. For liberals, Bush’s No Child Left Behind program “wasn’t fully funded.” The prescription bill for seniors contained a “doughnut hole,” which made it insufficiently generous.
Conservatives, pundits and talk show hosts routinely blasted Bush for domestic spending. In 2003, after the passage of the Medicare prescription bill, a member of The Heritage Foundation said, “The president isn’t showing leadership, and conservatives are angry.” Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, said, “The conservative, free-market base in America is rightly in revolt over this bill.”
(article by Larry Elder, in Washington Post)
Participant[quote=SK in CV]If that is really the main issue of the tea partiers, where were they for the 8 years before this administration, when congress and the administration ran up debt, and spent and grew the size of government faster than any before them? As the deficit grew by 3 to 4 times what it had been during the previous 8 years and 50% higher than every other administration before, besides Bush the senior’s 4 years in office.[/quote]
Perhaps most people weren’t listening.
“As to Bush’s non-defense, non-homeland security domestic spending, people did complain — lots of them and frequently. Why isn’t this more widely recognized? When a conservative criticizes Rush Limbaugh, that’s news. The left hates Limbaugh. When a conservative criticizes Bush’s spending, that’s not news. The left loves domestic spending. For liberals, Bush’s No Child Left Behind program “wasn’t fully funded.” The prescription bill for seniors contained a “doughnut hole,” which made it insufficiently generous.
Conservatives, pundits and talk show hosts routinely blasted Bush for domestic spending. In 2003, after the passage of the Medicare prescription bill, a member of The Heritage Foundation said, “The president isn’t showing leadership, and conservatives are angry.” Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, said, “The conservative, free-market base in America is rightly in revolt over this bill.”
(article by Larry Elder, in Washington Post)
Participant[quote=SK in CV]If that is really the main issue of the tea partiers, where were they for the 8 years before this administration, when congress and the administration ran up debt, and spent and grew the size of government faster than any before them? As the deficit grew by 3 to 4 times what it had been during the previous 8 years and 50% higher than every other administration before, besides Bush the senior’s 4 years in office.[/quote]
Perhaps most people weren’t listening.
“As to Bush’s non-defense, non-homeland security domestic spending, people did complain — lots of them and frequently. Why isn’t this more widely recognized? When a conservative criticizes Rush Limbaugh, that’s news. The left hates Limbaugh. When a conservative criticizes Bush’s spending, that’s not news. The left loves domestic spending. For liberals, Bush’s No Child Left Behind program “wasn’t fully funded.” The prescription bill for seniors contained a “doughnut hole,” which made it insufficiently generous.
Conservatives, pundits and talk show hosts routinely blasted Bush for domestic spending. In 2003, after the passage of the Medicare prescription bill, a member of The Heritage Foundation said, “The president isn’t showing leadership, and conservatives are angry.” Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, said, “The conservative, free-market base in America is rightly in revolt over this bill.”
(article by Larry Elder, in Washington Post)
Participant[quote=SK in CV]If that is really the main issue of the tea partiers, where were they for the 8 years before this administration, when congress and the administration ran up debt, and spent and grew the size of government faster than any before them? As the deficit grew by 3 to 4 times what it had been during the previous 8 years and 50% higher than every other administration before, besides Bush the senior’s 4 years in office.[/quote]
Perhaps most people weren’t listening.
“As to Bush’s non-defense, non-homeland security domestic spending, people did complain — lots of them and frequently. Why isn’t this more widely recognized? When a conservative criticizes Rush Limbaugh, that’s news. The left hates Limbaugh. When a conservative criticizes Bush’s spending, that’s not news. The left loves domestic spending. For liberals, Bush’s No Child Left Behind program “wasn’t fully funded.” The prescription bill for seniors contained a “doughnut hole,” which made it insufficiently generous.
Conservatives, pundits and talk show hosts routinely blasted Bush for domestic spending. In 2003, after the passage of the Medicare prescription bill, a member of The Heritage Foundation said, “The president isn’t showing leadership, and conservatives are angry.” Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, said, “The conservative, free-market base in America is rightly in revolt over this bill.”
(article by Larry Elder, in Washington Post)
Participant[quote=afx114]So what is it then that the tea bagger anti-tax brigade are against? The fact that we pay more taxes than Mexico and Turkey? Please enlighten me.[/quote]
The people who are part of the Tea Party understand that more taxes and more spending are not answers in making the U.S. economy better. They also understand that bigger government does not create more jobs and prosperity. They are also very alarmed at the high amount of debt that the U.S. has and they want that fixed yesterday.
For me, I am against higher taxes for the simple reason that it is against common sense to give money to people who have proved unable to spend it properly. I will be the best judge on how to spend my money, not the government, not anyone else.
There is a certain principle of money and economics that if you are forced to spend your own money, you try very hard to spend it wisely. There is no such concern when you are spending other people’s money.
Those ideas are part of the core Tea Party principles.
Bet you never heard that on the MSM.
Participant[quote=afx114]So what is it then that the tea bagger anti-tax brigade are against? The fact that we pay more taxes than Mexico and Turkey? Please enlighten me.[/quote]
The people who are part of the Tea Party understand that more taxes and more spending are not answers in making the U.S. economy better. They also understand that bigger government does not create more jobs and prosperity. They are also very alarmed at the high amount of debt that the U.S. has and they want that fixed yesterday.
For me, I am against higher taxes for the simple reason that it is against common sense to give money to people who have proved unable to spend it properly. I will be the best judge on how to spend my money, not the government, not anyone else.
There is a certain principle of money and economics that if you are forced to spend your own money, you try very hard to spend it wisely. There is no such concern when you are spending other people’s money.
Those ideas are part of the core Tea Party principles.
Bet you never heard that on the MSM.
Participant[quote=afx114]So what is it then that the tea bagger anti-tax brigade are against? The fact that we pay more taxes than Mexico and Turkey? Please enlighten me.[/quote]
The people who are part of the Tea Party understand that more taxes and more spending are not answers in making the U.S. economy better. They also understand that bigger government does not create more jobs and prosperity. They are also very alarmed at the high amount of debt that the U.S. has and they want that fixed yesterday.
For me, I am against higher taxes for the simple reason that it is against common sense to give money to people who have proved unable to spend it properly. I will be the best judge on how to spend my money, not the government, not anyone else.
There is a certain principle of money and economics that if you are forced to spend your own money, you try very hard to spend it wisely. There is no such concern when you are spending other people’s money.
Those ideas are part of the core Tea Party principles.
Bet you never heard that on the MSM.
Participant[quote=afx114]So what is it then that the tea bagger anti-tax brigade are against? The fact that we pay more taxes than Mexico and Turkey? Please enlighten me.[/quote]
The people who are part of the Tea Party understand that more taxes and more spending are not answers in making the U.S. economy better. They also understand that bigger government does not create more jobs and prosperity. They are also very alarmed at the high amount of debt that the U.S. has and they want that fixed yesterday.
For me, I am against higher taxes for the simple reason that it is against common sense to give money to people who have proved unable to spend it properly. I will be the best judge on how to spend my money, not the government, not anyone else.
There is a certain principle of money and economics that if you are forced to spend your own money, you try very hard to spend it wisely. There is no such concern when you are spending other people’s money.
Those ideas are part of the core Tea Party principles.
Bet you never heard that on the MSM.
Participant[quote=afx114]So what is it then that the tea bagger anti-tax brigade are against? The fact that we pay more taxes than Mexico and Turkey? Please enlighten me.[/quote]
The people who are part of the Tea Party understand that more taxes and more spending are not answers in making the U.S. economy better. They also understand that bigger government does not create more jobs and prosperity. They are also very alarmed at the high amount of debt that the U.S. has and they want that fixed yesterday.
For me, I am against higher taxes for the simple reason that it is against common sense to give money to people who have proved unable to spend it properly. I will be the best judge on how to spend my money, not the government, not anyone else.
There is a certain principle of money and economics that if you are forced to spend your own money, you try very hard to spend it wisely. There is no such concern when you are spending other people’s money.
Those ideas are part of the core Tea Party principles.
Bet you never heard that on the MSM.
Participant[quote=sdduuuude]
You and the other guy are trying to make it sound like “progressive tax” means “tax I like” and “regressive tax” as “tax I don’t like” which is unacceptable.Know what a term means and use it properly or don’t bring it up.[/quote]
Not the first time this has been said to BriBri.
LOL.
-
AuthorPosts
