# 23 Polls Say People Support Higher Taxes to Reduce the Deficit



## Synthaholic (Aug 12, 2011)

*23 Polls Say People Support Higher Taxes to Reduce the Deficit*









Go to the link to click each poll.


----------



## Truthmatters (Aug 12, 2011)

In pretty high numbers too.

If the republicans win the election by refusing to raise any taxes that will indicate real election fraud


----------



## CountofTuscany (Aug 12, 2011)

Synthaholic said:


> *23 Polls Say People Support Higher Taxes to Reduce the Deficit*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Obama should have gotten off his ass when he had the super majority.


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 12, 2011)

CountofTuscany said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > *23 Polls Say People Support Higher Taxes to Reduce the Deficit*
> ...


Or the Republicans could do the will of the American public.


----------



## Full-Auto (Aug 12, 2011)

Synthaholic said:


> *23 Polls Say People Support Higher Taxes to Reduce the Deficit*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 You couldnt even be honest in your title.






Why did you fail to mention the combination there of?


----------



## Mad Scientist (Aug 12, 2011)

23 polls show Americans don't understand basic economics or math. Even raising the tax rates on the "evil rich" to 100% *will not solve the budget problem.*


----------



## Truthmatters (Aug 12, 2011)

then move


----------



## CountofTuscany (Aug 12, 2011)

Synthaholic said:


> CountofTuscany said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


So could Obama and resign.


----------



## Stephanie (Aug 12, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> then move



You move 
and take the idiot Op, WHO wants to put MORE OF A BURDEN on the people so this Greedy ass Guberment can continue SPENDING us into the poor house, with you.

see ya


----------



## Full-Auto (Aug 12, 2011)

truthmatters said:


> then move


----------



## Truthmatters (Aug 12, 2011)

Why should the majority of Americans move to please your minor faction?


----------



## Full-Auto (Aug 12, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> Why should the majority of Americans move to please your minor faction?



You threw it out there pussy.

Cant take it?

Pussy


----------



## Stephanie (Aug 12, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> Why should the majority of Americans move to please your minor faction?



Sweetie, you can keep PRETENDING the November elections NEVER HAPPENED and that the BOYKINGS approval numbers are now swirling down the shittier, but you all are NOT A MAJORITY. It show the people are SICK of you all. now don't let it get you down.


----------



## Truthmatters (Aug 12, 2011)

I pretend nothing.


The facts are teh American people dont like your historically failed ideas


----------



## CountofTuscany (Aug 12, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> I pretend nothing.
> 
> 
> The facts are teh American people dont like your historically failed ideas


 how's that economic recovery doing?


----------



## The Infidel (Aug 12, 2011)

Synthaholic said:


> Go to the link to click each poll.



Raise who's taxes?

I guarantee you, if the question was framed "*should your taxes be raised?*"

The resounding answer would be NO!

Lets raise all of our taxes.... everyone pays, and I mean EVERYONE.

You would see a different answer.... 


Thats not the right answer anyways


----------



## Full-Auto (Aug 12, 2011)

CountofTuscany said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > I pretend nothing.
> ...


----------



## BDBoop (Aug 12, 2011)

CountofTuscany said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > CountofTuscany said:
> ...



In the average day, how many people look at you and say "God, but you're an idiot!"?


----------



## CountofTuscany (Aug 12, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> CountofTuscany said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Most of the koolaid drinkers like you.


----------



## Truthmatters (Aug 12, 2011)

CountofTuscany said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > I pretend nothing.
> ...



Better than when republicans were in complete control


----------



## BDBoop (Aug 12, 2011)

CountofTuscany said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > CountofTuscany said:
> ...



I rest my case. Buh-bye now.


----------



## The Infidel (Aug 12, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> CountofTuscany said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



The same could be asked of you my dear


----------



## Stephanie (Aug 12, 2011)

CountofTuscany said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > CountofTuscany said:
> ...



Man isn't that question rich, from someone who post ignorant shit from a site called, the Daily Beast...

koolaid drinker fits perfectly..


----------



## Full-Auto (Aug 12, 2011)

The Infidel said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > CountofTuscany said:
> ...



Why hasnt the herd addressed the combination there of?


----------



## Oldstyle (Aug 12, 2011)

CountofTuscany said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > *23 Polls Say People Support Higher Taxes to Reduce the Deficit*
> ...




Gee, let's look at why that never happened...shall we?

The reason Obama didn't let the Bush tax cuts expire was that he couldn't get moderate Democrats to vote that way...members of his own Party understood that raising taxes in a weak economy would probably send us right back into recession and wanted nothing to do with having voted yes for that as they got ready to run for reelection.


----------



## Truthmatters (Aug 12, 2011)

Or they were depending on money from these people to get reelected


----------



## The Infidel (Aug 12, 2011)

Oldstyle said:


> Gee, let's look at why that never happened...shall we?
> 
> The reason Obama didn't let the Bush tax cuts expire was that he couldn't get moderate Democrats to vote that way...members of his own Party understood that raising taxes in a weak economy would probably send us right back into recession and wanted nothing to do with having voted yes for that as they got ready to run for reelection.



Stop bringing logic into a silly debate..... just stop it OK?


----------



## The Infidel (Aug 12, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> Or they were depending on money from these people to get reelected



Who are "these people"


----------



## CountofTuscany (Aug 12, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> CountofTuscany said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Yea, sure.  Go play in traffic


----------



## Oldstyle (Aug 12, 2011)

It's the same situation now...and you still hear calls for tax raises from the Progressives.  Only now it's just rhetoric because they know only too well that such a measure won't make it through the House.  The fact is...if the Democrats had super majorities "now"...they still wouldn't pass tax increases because enough of them have to run for reelection next year and they are well aware of the negative effect raising taxes would have on our economy.  So they do some sabre rattling for the far left cliques back home and silently thank the heavens above that they'll never have to deal with the consequences if taxes actually were increased.


----------



## CountofTuscany (Aug 12, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> CountofTuscany said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



Market drops 1000 + points in a week = Liberal progress.  Sweet.


----------



## The Infidel (Aug 12, 2011)

CountofTuscany said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > CountofTuscany said:
> ...



Whats the unemployment rate again?


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 12, 2011)

When you start out with almost half of the population getting a handout, it isn't a reach to get majorities on polls liks this.  Go ahead, raise taxes and see what happens in November 2012.


----------



## The Infidel (Aug 12, 2011)

CountofTuscany said:


> Market drops 1000 + points in a week = Liberal progress.  Sweet.






The Infidel said:


> Whats the unemployment rate again?





Awww hech, what do we know.... we are just evil con$


----------



## Full-Auto (Aug 12, 2011)

CountofTuscany said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > CountofTuscany said:
> ...


----------



## CountofTuscany (Aug 12, 2011)

The Infidel said:


> CountofTuscany said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...


Hey, we only lost 140,000 jobs last week.  More progress.


----------



## Toro (Aug 12, 2011)

The Infidel said:


> Raise who's taxes?
> 
> I guarantee you, if the question was framed "*should your taxes be raised?*"
> 
> The resounding answer would be NO!



Indeed. 

It's like when people say they support spending cuts, just not THEIR spending cuts.

The American people have not grasped this yet.


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 12, 2011)

Full-Auto said:


> You couldnt even be honest in your title.




That's the title of the linked page, moron.


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 12, 2011)

Mad Scientist said:


> 23 polls show Americans don't understand basic economics or math. Even raising the tax rates on the "evil rich" to 100% *will not solve the budget problem.*


Sure it would.


----------



## Full-Auto (Aug 12, 2011)

Synthaholic said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> > You couldnt even be honest in your title.
> ...



LOL  Lap dog and parrot.

Too funny.

You still havent come clean.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Aug 12, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> I pretend nothing.
> 
> 
> The facts are teh American people dont like your historically failed ideas


Historical is right!:
Consumer Sentiment Plunges to Three-Decade Low - Bloomberg


> Confidence among U.S. consumers plunged in August to the lowest level since May 1980, adding to concern that weak employment gains and volatility in the stock market will prompt households to retrench.


 Welcome Back Carter! 

Of course, I really can't blame Obozo for all this. He's only doing what his handlers at G.E. and The Federal Reserve are telling him to do.


----------



## Oldstyle (Aug 12, 2011)

Synthaholic said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > 23 polls show Americans don't understand basic economics or math. Even raising the tax rates on the "evil rich" to 100% *will not solve the budget problem.*
> ...



You've just shown how supremely ignorant you on this subject.  The fact of the matter is that you could seize ALL of the wealth of the top 1% and it wouldn't even put a dent in the looming unfunded entitlements crisis.  People like you are a problem...a SERIOUS problem.


----------



## frazzledgear (Aug 12, 2011)

CountofTuscany said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > *23 Polls Say People Support Higher Taxes to Reduce the Deficit*
> ...



VERY deceptive title to your thread -which doesn't surprise me IN THE LEAST.  But then liberals always believe their ends justifies THEIR means.

*People did NOT say they wanted THEIR taxes increased! * I noticed pollsters VERY CAREFULLY avoided asking THAT question, didn't they?  ROFL  So pollsters got a bunch of people to say they had no problem if the taxes of SOMEONE ELSE WERE INCREASED.  Oh wow -a bunch more polls showing a sorry percentage of people may think increasing taxes on others won't somehow bite THEM in the ass.  You really only have a bunch of polls that were carefully worded to make people believe it will be someone else picking up the tab as if its all a FREE LUNCH for them, right?  Right?   As if it all happens in a vacuum with no consequences for anyone else, right?

Where are the polls showing that just because these polls shows that, that it means its the best thing to do?  Where are those polls showing economic reality is changed by this -and raising taxes during a bad economy and high unemployment really won't make the economy even worse and increase unemployment even MORE after all?  That it won't actually end up making our budget deficit problems even WORSE because fewer people working will provably reduce government revenue.  Sorry, but THAT is the economic reality -it will make things worse for EVERYONE and the ones harmed the most -will be those on the bottom who could LEAST afford it.  Doesn't matter how many polls you show that a lot of people may believe in a fairy tale, it will NEVER make that fairy tale come true!  Wishing it were different WON'T MAKE IT SO -so how about we deal in reality instead of pushing FAIRY TALES.    Do YOU believe in fairy tales?  Then why promote the notion THIS fairy tale is true that it is possible to target a specific economic class for higher taxes during a bad economy and it will all happen in a total vacuum without real time consequences for EVERYONE ELSE -really bad consequences too that will actually hurt those at the bottom the most.

Deal with REALITY, ok?  Raising income taxes on the rich when the economy is already bad will not hurt the rich -it will hurt the POOR the most.  It will make our economy WORSE, it will result in even higher unemployment.  Wishful thinking will NEVER change that.  IT IS ECONOMIC REALITY. So what are you REALLY pushing here -and WHY?  Where are the polls that first explain those FACTS to people first -and then ask them if they still think its a good idea or not. 

Just because people like YOU want to promote the fairy tale belief that targeting a specific economic class with higher taxes can be done without any consequences to them personally -doesn't change the FACT it will harm THEM.  It won't change the FACT those hurt the worst will not be the rich -but those on the bottom and already living on the edge.  It always does, it always will.  No matter who is pushing the fairy tale, what we will get from it will still be REALITY.  Those who will be harmed the most by raising taxes on the rich -will NOT be those on the top like morons like YOU want to believe and NEED to stupidly believe.  This isn't an issue where belief will magically make it so, sorry.   The REAL question people should be asked - is even if it means you lose YOUR job and everything you buy will end up costing even more  -do you still want to pretend we can raise taxes on the rich without it biting YOU in the ass?  

So let's move on to reality here.  Where is the evidence that raising taxes on the rich will NOT further tank the economy -when it is FACT and ECONOMIC REALITY that doing so when the economy is already in bad shape will cause even MORE harm to our economy and end up throwing MORE people out of work.  Do you even have the mental capacity to understand it will mean government will end up with LESS revenue, not more -which means it will make our budget problems even WORSE, not better?   

Seriously -people like you pushing for this FAIRY TALE as if we just PRETEND it won't result in what it ALWAYS DOES and ALWAYS WILL -will somehow change the outcome is beyond immoral.  

As I've said before  -at some point we have to face facts about people like you.  After nonstop repeated PROOF that raising taxes on ANYONE when the economy is bad only makes it worse and hurts those on the bottom the most, we need to start looking for the explanation of why people like you push this fairy tale anyway, knowing full well those who will be harmed the most will NOT be the rich -but those who can least afford it.  What's the REAL deal they keep pushing this PROVABLE fairy tale then.

So why is it Republicans face facts on this issue -that it is IMPOSSIBLE to raise taxes on one economic class when the economy is already bad -without it causing the MOST harm to those on the bottom and damaging a bad economy even more, that the consequences for it NEVER happen in a vacuum. * But Democrats push the fairy tale insisting it raising taxes on one economic class when the economy is already bad will always happen in a total vacuum without ANY consequences to others at all, much less harming those on the bottom the most? * Why do they push this LIE when history and economic reality has proved those harmed the most are not only those on the bottom, but that is the only possible outcome.

Do I really think Obama just doesn't know this?  That none of his advisers know this?  That Democrats just don't know this and liberals just don't know this?  In spite of the fact history has repeatedly proven it is the ONLY possible outcome?  So I think they know EXACTLY who will really be hurt the most.  The real question is WHY do they push them then? 

Clearly harming those on the bottom is EXACTLY what Democrats, liberals and people like you WANT to see happen in the first place - because they believe it to be politically advantageous for THEMSELVES.  And then naturally will turn around and lie some more and tell them the people to blame for it are those who warned those policies would end up hurting them the most.


----------



## editec (Aug 12, 2011)

*



23 Polls Say People Support Higher Taxes to Reduce the Deficit

Click to expand...

 
Clearly none of those POLLSTERS focused their attention on Country Clubs in America.

Had they done that, their findings might have been wildly different*


----------



## Warrior102 (Aug 12, 2011)

All you Libs screaming for higher taxes - "Whip Out Your Fucking Checkbooks and Lead By Example."

If you don't have a checking account, fine. Send the U.S. Treasury your Food Stamps. 

Short of that - STFU 

You're like a broken fucking record.


----------



## Warrior102 (Aug 12, 2011)

editec said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You mean they should have polled those people who are already paying the majority of taxes? 

That's idiotic.


----------



## theHawk (Aug 12, 2011)

I think we should raise taxes.  I don't know why Republicans are being so fucking stupid on this topic.

Half of the workers in this country don't pay any income tax at all.  Time for that to change.  Everyone should be taxed the same amount out of every dollar they make.  No loopholes.


----------



## Warrior102 (Aug 12, 2011)

theHawk said:


> I think we should raise taxes.  I don't know why Republicans are being so fucking stupid on this topic.
> 
> Half of the workers in this country don't pay any income tax at all.  Time for that to change.  Everyone should be taxed the same amount out of every dollar they make.  No loopholes.



You do, huh? 

How much Federal Income Tax did you pay in 2010 ? 

I will bet I *PAID *more than you earned. 

The government can kiss my fucking ass. 

I can spend *my *money more efficiently than those fuck-ups in DC are currently doing. 

Is Obama on vacation this week?

Of course he is. 

Send him a fucking check.


----------



## Oldstyle (Aug 12, 2011)

Warrior102 said:


> All you Libs screaming for higher taxes - "Whip Out Your Fucking Checkbooks and Lead By Example."
> 
> If you don't have a checking account, fine. Send the U.S. Treasury your Food Stamps.
> 
> ...




Shit, it's all Kabuki theater at this point.  The same people who didn't PASS tax increases when they controlled the House, Senate and White House are saying that they want to pass them now?  So what's different NOW compared to a year ago?  The economy still sucks...unemployment still sucks...Europe is still teetering on complete collapse.  What IS different is the so called "stimulus" is history and States like California are even more broke than they were before.

So is there really anyone out there with half a brain that thinks the Democrats are really serious about raising taxes?  Come on folks, it's all Grade A, US Prime, BULLSHIT.  We have to cut spending and we have to address out of control entitlements.  If we don't any tables you look at show us insolvent in a few decades if not sooner.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 12, 2011)

Repealing Obamacare would help reduce the deficit.  Now that the young don't have to buy a policy, it is a deficit monster roaming the streets.


----------



## theHawk (Aug 12, 2011)

Warrior102 said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > I think we should raise taxes.  I don't know why Republicans are being so fucking stupid on this topic.
> ...




I pay plenty in taxes each year, how much is quite frankly none of your fucking business.

But half this country pays nothing at all.

Time to raise taxes from 0% up to 33% for those brackets that pay nothing at all.


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 12, 2011)

Oldstyle said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Mad Scientist said:
> ...




First off, who said only the top 1%?  He said the "evil rich".  That could include the to 7%, for instance.

Second, all the deals about cuts in spending are spread out over 10 years, etc.  Taking the taxes for 10 years yields a lot more.


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 12, 2011)

frazzledgear said:


> CountofTuscany said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...




Who gives a fuck?  The people are saying - in 23 different polls - that they want the taxes raised on the rich.

Sorry that makes you sad.


----------



## elvis (Aug 12, 2011)

I guess Synthaholic thinks the Iraq War was a good decision, since 70 percent of the country agreed with it.


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 12, 2011)

Warrior102 said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > I think we should raise taxes.  I don't know why Republicans are being so fucking stupid on this topic.
> ...


Don't like paying taxes?  Move to fucking Somalia.


----------



## Oddball (Aug 12, 2011)

> *23 Polls Say People Support Higher Taxes to Reduce the Deficit *


How many of those dips are willing to stroke a check right now?

Oh yeah....Higher taxes on _*other people*_.


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 12, 2011)

elvis said:


> I guess Synthaholic thinks the Iraq War was a good decision, since 70 percent of the country agreed with it.




Well, 70% of the country were in favor of invading Iraq, SO WE DID IT.

So, let's now raise taxes, based on your logic.


----------



## elvis (Aug 12, 2011)

Synthaholic said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > I guess Synthaholic thinks the Iraq War was a good decision, since 70 percent of the country agreed with it.
> ...



You agree with both.  Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 12, 2011)

Oddball said:


> > *23 Polls Say People Support Higher Taxes to Reduce the Deficit *
> 
> 
> How many of those dips are willing to stroke a check right now?
> ...




Yes - billionaires and millionaires.

I'm so glad you were able to figure out the OP all by yourself!  You're getting to be such a big boy!


----------



## Oddball (Aug 12, 2011)

Synthaholic said:


> Don't like paying taxes?  Move to fucking Somalia.


Want to pay more in taxes than you take home?...Move the fuck to Sweden.


----------



## elvis (Aug 12, 2011)

Oddball said:


> > *23 Polls Say People Support Higher Taxes to Reduce the Deficit *
> 
> 
> How many of those dips are willing to stroke a check right now?
> ...


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 12, 2011)

elvis said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...


I agree that if 70% of the country wants to do something, it should be done.


Thanks for playing.


----------



## Oddball (Aug 12, 2011)

Synthaholic said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > > *23 Polls Say People Support Higher Taxes to Reduce the Deficit *
> ...


Yeah....None of the assholes are for higher taxes, if it hits _*their*_ pockets.

Move along....Nothing to see here.


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 12, 2011)

Oddball said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Don't like paying taxes?  Move to fucking Somalia.
> ...



If you are paying more than you are taking home, then you're doing it wrong.


Dumbass.


----------



## elvis (Aug 12, 2011)

Synthaholic said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



and thanks for clearing that up.  I guess you agree with a lot of Nazi Germany's actions as well.


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 12, 2011)

Oddball said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


That's right.  Billionaires can afford it.


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 12, 2011)

elvis said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...


I'm not making the judgement on whether the taxes, Iraq War, or Nazi Germany are good ideas, in this little exchange between us.  I'm saying that in a democracy, the majority rules.  If 70% want to go to war, we go to war.

And Nazi Germany wasn't a democracy, btw, so along with leaping straight to Godwin's Law, that's a double-FAIL.

Or, so it's easier for you teabaggers to relate:  it's a AA+FAIL.


----------



## elvis (Aug 12, 2011)

Synthaholic said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



I don't believe in Godwin's Law, first of all.  What's true in America is true in Germany or anywhere else.    I'm not a member of the TEA party, so go fuck yourself.   If you knew history, you would know that Germany WAS a democracy until 90 percent of the country agreed with Hitler's consolidation of power.  Glad to know you agree with Hitler consolidating power and becoming dictator.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 12, 2011)

To bad you can't view the questions in the poll. People with agree with anything if you word the question just right.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 12, 2011)

Synthaholic said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Your stupidity never seems to stop. If Germany before the nazis took control wasn't a democracy what was it?


----------



## The Infidel (Aug 12, 2011)

Synthaholic said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



So what do ya do in order to fix that?

Oh, I know.... lets go rob someone! Yeah.... thats the ticket!


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 12, 2011)

elvis said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...




No, what's true in America is NOT true in Germany.  What a ridiculous statement!

I never said you were a teabagger.  But there are plenty of them who are reading this thread.  You just read it the wrong way, so go fuck yourself.  

Why are you stuck on stupid with this automatic equating of facts with approval.  The majority of Germans followed Hitler.  Fact.

Majorities rule, in almost all cases.


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 12, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...




Fuck off, asshole.  You're too fucking stupid to see that I wrote that *Nazi Germany* wasn't a democracy.  Look - I even bolded it for you in the nested quote.

You are one stupid motherfucker.


----------



## elvis (Aug 12, 2011)

Synthaholic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



You really are a waste of cum.


----------



## Dr.House (Aug 12, 2011)

People who believe that taxes should be raised should have their own taxes raised 15%...

Most people who want taxes raised want other people's taxes raised...

Fuck those people...


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 12, 2011)

The Infidel said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


Are you going to tell me that hedge fund managers pulling home 20-30 million a year cannot afford to pay more?  Alex Rodriguez cannot afford to pay more?  Lady Gaga cannot afford to pay more?  Rush Limbaugh cannot afford to pay more?  George Soros, Larry Ellison,Sergey Brin and Larry Page cannot afford to pay more?  You know that none of them even paid what they were supposed to have paid, all of them having excellent accountants.



Who's that guy who went down in the 2008 collapse?  His office had gold faucets in the bathroom and a $1400.00 garbage can next to the desk.  Why do you want to defend that kind of excess?  Because you think he's earned that?  By what criteria?


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 12, 2011)

elvis said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Are you coming to Big Rebecca's defense?


----------



## elvis (Aug 12, 2011)

Synthaholic said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



No.  I'm calling you a waste of cum no matter what Becky says.


----------



## mudwhistle (Aug 12, 2011)

Synthaholic said:


> *23 Polls Say People Support Higher Taxes to Reduce the Deficit*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*yawn*



Reuters had 3 polls, Gallup 3, CBS 3, CNN 3, ABC 5.......WTF. One each wasn't enough????

I have an idea. All of these gullible assholes that want tax increases......give em to them. Leave the rest of us alone.

I looked at the question in the Gallup poll and it didn't say anything about raising taxes.

On the CNN poll it looks like 87% don't want a Middle Class Tax Increase......but that's what Obama is planning on doing. Raising their taxes.

I wonder if the respondents knew that????


----------



## MeBelle (Aug 12, 2011)

Mad Scientist said:


> Historical is right!:
> Consumer Sentiment Plunges to Three-Decade Low - Bloomberg
> 
> 
> ...




You mean an EVIL CORPORATION and a bunch of RICH ELITE BANKERS? 
*GASP*


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 12, 2011)

Synthaholic said:


> *23 Polls Say People Support Higher Taxes to Reduce the Deficit*
> 
> 
> 
> ...









What percentage of your income are you willing to pay for your country? Tell us please dew?


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 12, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> In pretty high numbers too.
> 
> If the republicans win the election by refusing to raise any taxes that will indicate real election fraud



What percentage of your income are you willing to pay for your country. come on now show us your patriotism..


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 12, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> CountofTuscany said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



chicken shit.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 12, 2011)

Synthaholic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



another woman hter, those are the type that use a female term to insult  a man.

But anyway, Germany was a democracy before the the german workers socialist party took control.


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 12, 2011)

Warrior102 said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > I think we should raise taxes.  I don't know why Republicans are being so fucking stupid on this topic.
> ...









You need to calm down. If everyone and I mean everyone paid FEDERAL INCOME tax your rate would come down not go up. think about it.


----------



## Full-Auto (Aug 12, 2011)

WillowTree said:


> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



Doubtful... I am sure some one in congress would find BETTER use for it.


----------



## Dr.House (Aug 12, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> CountofTuscany said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



^^ Ironic post is ironic....


----------



## turtledude (Aug 12, 2011)

Synthaholic said:


> *23 Polls Say People Support Higher Taxes to Reduce the Deficit*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



lots of people support someone else paying more taxes to solve everyones' problems

a stunning argument why we should have a flat tax-not a scheme where the many can continue to vote up the taxes of the minority who actually pay their share of the tax burden-and that of many more


----------



## Full-Auto (Aug 12, 2011)

turtledude said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > *23 Polls Say People Support Higher Taxes to Reduce the Deficit*
> ...



Lots of people


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 13, 2011)

turtledude said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > *23 Polls Say People Support Higher Taxes to Reduce the Deficit*
> ...




And just like Elvis' limp dick argument about how 70% wanted to go to war with Iraq, they were 'voting' to send other people to go fight - 70% weren't saying they were willing to go to Iraq themselves.


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 13, 2011)

Full-Auto said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


You left off Hannity's Viagra.


----------



## elvis (Aug 13, 2011)

Synthaholic said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



you mean like how a majority of those in your worthless polls say they should raise OTHER people's taxes?


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 13, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> Why should the majority of Americans move to please your minor faction?


That's what I was wondering about liberals.  There are dozens of 'socialist paradises' out there for you to live in, but only one American Constitution.  So you take up the option and move to the gubmint of your choice.  Venezuela, that medical superpower Cuba, the oft idolized Sweden or that beacon to the world China.  Many would be glad to accept you with open arms.  Go, do and begone.

I'll have to look at those polls tomorrow to see their internals.  I smell a bullshit set up.  Particularly when I examined the infamous "80%" poll and found it to be commissioned by radical socialist groups who polled between 1000-1500 unknown people in 4 midwestern and mountain states.  Not very representative of this nation as a whole, and no tracking to find bias, and a VERY small sample.

I bet lots of these polls will be exactly the same.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 13, 2011)

Synthaholic said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Hey fuckwit you like to make these wild accusations, but no comment on Germany was a democracy, before the German Workers SOCIALIST Party took control of the country.


----------



## code1211 (Aug 13, 2011)

Synthaholic said:


> *23 Polls Say People Support Higher Taxes to Reduce the Deficit*
> 
> 
> 
> ...





And yet the Domocrats keep losing elections in spite of this.

How can all of these voters be wrong when the polls clearly show that the idea of increasing taxes is a popular one?

People sure are stupid.


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 13, 2011)

elvis said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > turtledude said:
> ...


Yes.  Exactly.


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 13, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > turtledude said:
> ...


You're a fucking brain-dead moron.  You can't even remember posts from less than 24 hours ago.


----------



## FuelRod (Aug 13, 2011)

When those poll figures include "on me" get back to us.


----------



## Full-Auto (Aug 13, 2011)

Synthaholic said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> > turtledude said:
> ...



I was trying to be polite and not show what total shit heads democrats are.


Dems reject amendment to ban Viagra for sex offenders - Live Pulse - POLITICO.com


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 13, 2011)

Full-Auto said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Full-Auto said:
> ...


There should be no insurance coverage for Viagra for ANYONE.  Fucking is not a right, under the Constitution.


----------



## Full-Auto (Aug 13, 2011)

Synthaholic said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Agreed, but democrats insisted on it.


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 13, 2011)

Full-Auto said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Full-Auto said:
> ...


I get the feeling there is probably a bit more to the story.


----------



## Full-Auto (Aug 13, 2011)

Synthaholic said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



It was during the health care debate where repubs were not allowed amendments.


Medicare to cover Viagra, similar sex performance drugs - Democratic Underground


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 13, 2011)

Full-Auto said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Full-Auto said:
> ...


Well then, that's why.


----------



## radioguy (Aug 13, 2011)

Mad Scientist said:


> 23 polls show Americans don't understand basic economics or math. Even raising the tax rates on the "evil rich" to 100% *will not solve the budget problem.*


Why not?  The problem started when those taxes were ended.
Even with that said, I think that most would agree that an increase in Government income of from $150B to $400B a year (depending on the tax law or tax rate changes invoked) would go well toward lowering the deficit.
-g


----------



## Full-Auto (Aug 13, 2011)

radioguy said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > 23 polls show Americans don't understand basic economics or math. Even raising the tax rates on the "evil rich" to 100% *will not solve the budget problem.*
> ...



Leaving a trillion dollar gap.  Impressive.


----------



## Rozman (Aug 13, 2011)

Let's ask the question over again...How bout this?

Would you support *YOUR TAXES BEING RAISED TO REDUCE THE DEFICIT ?*
What do you think the response would be.Anyone that filed a return for 2010 would have their taxes raised to reduce the deficit.When people are asked if they support a raise in taxes it's always the same.As long as it's the rich that takes the hit then it's fine.


----------



## radioguy (Aug 13, 2011)

Full-Auto said:


> radioguy said:
> 
> 
> > Mad Scientist said:
> ...


 Yes, well, firstly it would not be that large, unless you are measuring over a ten year period.  
Next, I don't think anyone is advocating using only tax increases.  The point is that increased Government income must be a part of the equation.   And why not tax those who are most able to contribute, those who have taken the best advantage of and gained the most from our system of personal, economic, and political freedom?
-g


----------



## Full-Auto (Aug 13, 2011)

radioguy said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> > radioguy said:
> ...



Yes it would, It still leaves a trillion dollar gap, Second as we borrow more The servicing of debt grows. It will reach 500 billion this year. It only get worse from there. We are on track to pay more in interest then we spend in defense.

You increase the revenue through a ramped up economy. I wouldnt mind the tax rates going back IF A BIG IF THEY GET SPENDING UNDER CONTROL.  Until then default, go under whatever.  The sun still comes up in the morning.


----------



## radioguy (Aug 13, 2011)

Synthaholic said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


Maybe not, but it is a duty according the Bible:  "...Be fruitful and multiply and fill the Earth..."
-g


----------



## Rozman (Aug 13, 2011)

radioguy said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> > radioguy said:
> ...







> *And why not tax those who are most able to contribute, those who have taken the best advantage of and gained the most from our system of personal, economic, and political freedom?*



Good God this was lifted right out of Obama's speech.....
Did it ever occur to any of you Libs that those who have taken advantage and gotten the most from this amazing country......

*PAY TAXES ON THIS ALREADY......*

And what do you do when this isn't enough to cover what those bleeding heart liberals have not already given away...What do we do then...We get Bernie Sanders and Debbie Wasserman Feingold Harris Silverstein Saperstein Schultz....did i get all her names in there? we get these people to go out and say that the rich need to give up more of what they have earned.....Stop it please will ya?


----------



## Oldstyle (Aug 13, 2011)

radioguy said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> > radioguy said:
> ...



Because doing so is actually counterproductive to increasing government income?  Look, I know it sounds good when you tell people that taxing the rich will solve our problems but when you crunch the numbers it's quite obvious that doesn't solve the problem.  The reason our deficits are exploding is the money that we are spending...both on general programs but especially on entitlements...is totally out of control.  Entitlements are projected to be triple our GDP in another twenty years.  Think about that for a minute and then ask yourself how much money we're going to need to take out of the pockets of Americans in taxes to pay for that kind of spending?  Sorry kids, but there just isn't enough money on the planet to keep this nonsense up.  It's time to cut spending.  It's time to reform entitlements.  And when we get our economy going again?  THEN we can talk about raising taxes.  To do so before then is just asking for this recession to drag on for the rest of the decade.


----------



## Ame®icano (Aug 13, 2011)

Synthaholic said:


> *23 Polls Say People Support Higher Taxes to Reduce the Deficit*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I bet none of those voted on polls don't pay any taxes.
For them, raising taxes means one thing only... tax the rich, not me.


----------



## radioguy (Aug 13, 2011)

> Good God this was lifted right out of Obama's speech


Yeah? I missed that. but it is not an idea that is original with him.  And the original topic of this thread is that a significant majority of polled Americans apparently agree with this.


Oldstyle said:


> radioguy said:
> 
> 
> > Full-Auto said:
> ...


Oddly enough, it was not too long after the tax _cuts_ that the recession started.  Probably just a coincidence, but not too many years after that we saw over a doubling of the national debt.
-g


----------



## Oldstyle (Aug 13, 2011)

radioguy said:


> > Good God this was lifted right out of Obama's speech
> 
> 
> Yeah? I missed that. but it is not an idea that is original with him.  And the original topic of this thread is that a significant majority of polled Americans apparently agree with this.
> ...



The recession didn't start because of tax cuts.  The recession started because of the collapse of a mammoth housing bubble  brought on by an over reliance on sub prime loans that should have never been written in the first place.  The banks are STILL awash in toxic assets from that debacle four years later.  As for the doubling of the debt?  That happened when Nancy Pelosi and friends grabbed control of the purse strings.


----------



## rdean (Aug 13, 2011)

These polls are ridiculous.  We have billionaires to support and nurture.  The only "correct" form of "socialism".


----------



## radioguy (Aug 13, 2011)

Oldstyle said:


> radioguy said:
> 
> 
> > > Good God this was lifted right out of Obama's speech
> ...


The recession was certainly aggravated by that collapse, but it started well before then.  


> As for the doubling of the debt?  That happened when Nancy Pelosi and friends grabbed control of the purse strings.


Actually, it started in 2002-3, years before the Democratic majority in the House.   $5.3T to $8.5T, an increase of $3.2T by 2006.  So over half of the increase between 2000 and 2008 was during a Republican majority in Congress.  Further increases came from programs already put in place from 2002.  The evidence could be construed to indicate that Pelosi started to put the brakes on Republican spending and borrowing.  
The fact is that Republican administrations have out spent and out borrowed Democratic administrations by a factor of three to one since Eisenhower.  
-g


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 14, 2011)

rdean said:


> These polls are ridiculous.  We have billionaires to support and nurture.  The only "correct" form of "socialism".



Congress is full of billionaires, the top 6 combine worth is over two trillion dollars. and guess how many of them are democrats?

Meet America&#039;s 25 Richest Politicians | ZeroHedge


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 14, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > These polls are ridiculous.  We have billionaires to support and nurture.  The only "correct" form of "socialism".
> ...




What's your point, moron?


----------



## St.Blues (Aug 14, 2011)

Synthaholic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...








Can you post a picture of Bwaney Fwank doing that, The true true liberal!
Let Liberal folks get a real feel for their holy man......

Blues


----------



## Truthmatters (Aug 14, 2011)

Is it a crime to have money?


----------



## BDBoop (Aug 14, 2011)

St.Blues said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Hey, at least she's eating, and not afraid to be on camera doing so. Attagirl!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 14, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> St.Blues said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Damn that is so hot, I have this strange urge to cover myself in Kathup and mustard, with a little bit of chille


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 14, 2011)

Synthaholic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Why aren't you attacking you're billionaire democrats?  Come on moron stop being a hypocrate,


----------



## Truthmatters (Aug 14, 2011)

Is it  a crime to have money?


----------



## driveby (Aug 14, 2011)

Synthaholic said:


> *23 Polls Say People Support Higher Taxes to Reduce the Deficit*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Then why didn't dems raise taxes when they had their super majority?.....


----------



## Oldstyle (Aug 14, 2011)

driveby said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > *23 Polls Say People Support Higher Taxes to Reduce the Deficit*
> ...




Christina Romer is on CNN as we speak stating that she not only wouldn't raise taxes right now but would actually cut them.  There is a REASON why the Democrats didn't raise taxes when they had their super majorities...they knew only too well that to do so would bring an already weak economy to a grinding halt.


----------



## Meister (Aug 14, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> Is it  a crime to have money?



Is it a crime not to have money?   Hmmmm?


----------



## radioguy (Aug 14, 2011)

Rozman said:


> And what do you do when this isn't enough to cover what those bleeding heart liberals have not already given away...What do we do then...We get Bernie Sanders and Debbie Wasserman Feingold Harris Silverstein Saperstein Schultz....did i get all her names in there? we get these people to go out and say that the rich need to give up more of what they have earned.....Stop it please will ya?


Well, those damn tax and spend bleeding heart liberals.  I should have realized.
While I don't think a discussion on where some of our tax money goes, nor a discussion of how much of our debt is interest on that debt is appropriate here, it is worthwhile to note, however, that whenever the debt goes up, so does the interest that must be paid to carry that debt.  If spending beyond a balanced budget doubles, then the debt more than doubles because the interest gets compounded.

All that said I think this is worth taking the time to study.  There is a caveat, though.  The figures are Government fiscal year figures and the Government's fiscal year is from Sep through Aug.  Because of this, there is some slight overlap between administrations, but not enough to alter the overall proportions.

The Conservative element in our country and our Government through the Republican party have railed against excessive Government spending, the national debt, and tax increases for those who can afford it the most and benefit the most from our system.

Here is a little information with no spin, instead, it is from the Department of the Treasury and the Government Accounting Office.

bush (R) himself admitted that during his Presidency the Government grew larger than during any previous Presidential administration. Additionally, the Government has grown substantially in size during every Republican administration starting with Reagan. Just like the Republican myth of "spendthrift Democrats" so goes the myth of the Republican "smaller Government".

Conservatives keep making up stories and their followers keep believing, blindly. Facts are just not needed.

But let's just try some real facts, just for the heck of it. Nixon (R) almost doubled the national debt, Reagan (R) almost tripled it, bush (R) more than doubled it.  bush (R) took the debt from $5.8 trillion to $11.91 trillion (more than doubling it, something no Democrat Presidential administration has ever done either by percentage or by dollar amount). (Treasury and GAO figures.) 

bush (R) holds the record of all the presidents' administrations for dollar amount increases in the Federal deficit and the National Debt.  Reagan (R) holds the record of all Presidents' administrations for percentage increases.  

Yes, your grandchildren will be paying for excesses of previous administrations.

For your edification here are the actual figures from the Department of the Treasury, and backed up by the GAO:

Here are the actual figures for changes in the National Debt since Eisenhower (R):

Eisenhower (R):
From $266.1Billion to $289.0B
An increase of $22.9B
An increase of 8.6%

Kennedy/Johnson (D):
$289.0B - $353.7B
+$69.7B
An increase of 22%

Nixon/Ford (R):
$353.7B - $698.8B
+$345.1B
An increase of +98% (practically double)

Carter (D):
$698.8B - $997.9B
+$299.1B
An increase of +43% (If we assume that if Carter had served two terms, his increase would likely be double that of one term, thus it would be 86%, still a smaller percentage increase than the Nixon/Ford administration.

Reagan (R):
$997.9B - $2,857.4B ($2.857 Trillion)
+$1,859.5B ($1.859 Trillion)
An increase of +286% (almost triple!)

G. H. W. Bush (R):
$2.8574Trillion - $4.4115T
+$1.5541T
An increase of +54%  (This was in just four years!  Eight years might well have doubled these figures to +$3.2T, over double.)

Clinton (D):
$4.4115T - $5.8075T
+$1.3960T
An increase of +32%  (by percentage and by dollar amount, in eight years, less than G. H. W. Bush with only four years)

g. w. bush (R):
$5.8075T - $11.91T
+$6.1025T
an increase of +105% (over double...from less than six trillion dollars to almost twelve trillion dollars!!!)

Obama (D):
(figures from 9/30/09 - 8/14/11)
$11.91T - $14.61T
+$2.7T
An increase of +23%  (While this seems a lot, much is the interest being paid on the last doubling of the debt.)

These are the actual National debt figures from the U.S. Treasury and the GAO.

It is very clear that the Republicans outspend the Democrats by a wide margin percentage-wise. By dollar amount, the Republicans have also outspent and outborrowed the Democrats: $4.464T for the Dems vs. $9.994T for the Reps since Eisenhower.

Yes the Republicans, the "fiscally responsible" ones, have outspent and outborrowed the Democrats by over a 2:1 margin since President Eisenhower. Even if you remove Eisenhower from the equation, it is still over 2:1.

Worse, the Republicans have deliberately decreased the Government's income by their tax cuts, while they continued to spend more. So much for the "tax and spend" Democrats. That is a myth perpetrated by Republicans who seem to have a need to misdirect you.  And, no wonder.

By percentage increase and by dollar amount, the Republicans outdo the Democrats by a significant margin, a two to one margin.  No Democrat had a larger percentage increase over any Republican except over Eisenhower.  (Ike, by the way, was a true fiscal conservative.)

-g


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 14, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> Is it  a crime to have money?



Who are you asking? I say no but do you think it's wrong to have a lot of money?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 14, 2011)

radioguy said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> > And what do you do when this isn't enough to cover what those bleeding heart liberals have not already given away...What do we do then...We get Bernie Sanders and Debbie Wasserman Feingold Harris Silverstein Saperstein Schultz....did i get all her names in there? we get these people to go out and say that the rich need to give up more of what they have earned.....Stop it please will ya?
> ...



OH how very nice more stats. Do you have the styats of who held congress during those presiential terms? Was it a Republican controlled congress or democrat? After all it is Congress who control's spending. So take your stats and bring back something else to argue with.


----------



## Oldstyle (Aug 14, 2011)

radioguy said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> > And what do you do when this isn't enough to cover what those bleeding heart liberals have not already given away...What do we do then...We get Bernie Sanders and Debbie Wasserman Feingold Harris Silverstein Saperstein Schultz....did i get all her names in there? we get these people to go out and say that the rich need to give up more of what they have earned.....Stop it please will ya?
> ...



Wow, great use of stats to really muddy an issue.  Let's take a closer look, shall we?  I believe we're looking at a total of 8 Republican terms compared to 4 1/2 Democratic terms.  I also believe we're looking at two Democratic Presidents who had the decided advantage of being in the Oval Office when the US was not at war giving them something referred to as a "peace dividend".  I'm also curious why your figures on Obama are from September 30th of 2009 until August of this year?  Did Obama not spend anything from when he took office in January of '09 until September of '09?  Talk about playing fast and loose with numbers!

Historically the three biggest spikes in the National debt occurred under Wilson (WW1), Roosevelt (WW2) and Obama.  

National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think if you look at the make up of our government during those three spikes you'll see that both the Congress and the Oval Office were controlled by Democrats.  Aren't statistics fun!!!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 14, 2011)

Oldstyle said:


> radioguy said:
> 
> 
> > Rozman said:
> ...



Why are you arguing about spending and the presidents Congress controlls spending, if you want to argue who the biggest spenders are, (Republican or Democrats) look to who controlled congress.


----------



## Oldstyle (Aug 14, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > radioguy said:
> ...



I'm pretty sure I pointed out that both Congress AND the White House were controlled by Democrats during the three largest spikes.  There really isn't much of an "argument" to make here.  The figures that the earlier poster used were laughable.  Obama's own people have estimated our national debt will be 16.5 trillion by 2012...up 5.9 trillion from when Obama took office.  To contrast that with Bush...the deficit only went up 4.2 trillion over Bush's TWO terms.  The increase if Obama wins a second term and Obama Care stands is going to be MAMMOTH!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 14, 2011)

Oldstyle said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



No argument on my part just wanted to make sure to point was clear Presidnets don't spend Congress does.


----------



## Oldstyle (Aug 14, 2011)

Oh, trust me I understand that quite clearly.  If you're W. in the last two years of your second term you need to get things passed by Nancy Pelosi's Congress.  The only way to get spending approved for the wars you want to fight is to trade off on domestic spending.  It's why the deficit EXPLODED the last two years of Bush's presidency.


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 15, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Attack them for WHAT???

C'mon, Rebecca:  FOCUS!


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 15, 2011)

driveby said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > *23 Polls Say People Support Higher Taxes to Reduce the Deficit*
> ...


Filibuster.


Try keeping up.


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 15, 2011)

Oldstyle said:


> Oh, trust me I understand that quite clearly.  If you're W. in the last two years of your second term you need to get things passed by Nancy Pelosi's Congress. * The only way to get spending approved for the wars you want to fight is to trade off on domestic spending.*  It's why the deficit EXPLODED the last two years of Bush's presidency.




Then show what those tradeoffs were.


----------



## California Girl (Aug 15, 2011)

I support a tax increase to reduce the deficit. 

The problem is that no one trusts the Government to use the tax increase to reduce the deficit. They have proved, time and again, (both sides) that they cannot be trusted with other people's money.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 15, 2011)

Synthaholic said:


> driveby said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


They had their chance they did in fact have a fillabuster proof congress how about you keep up.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 15, 2011)

Synthaholic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



REALLY SLIZZY, you are defending some of the wealthest Americans they are your elected officals. When they speak you jump the top 6 are worth over two trillion dollars One is a republican the next five are democrats, do you honestly think they are going to tax themself? And if they did they would have some loophole  created to siff their wealthy to other shores. And you hate the super rich? Right you hatye them so much you vote for them,


----------



## California Girl (Aug 15, 2011)

Synthaholic said:


> driveby said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Actually, they did have a filibuster proof majority.... but please don't let facts get in the way of your partisan ranting... no need to break the habit now.


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 15, 2011)

California Girl said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > driveby said:
> ...


The Bush tax cuts weren't going to expire until January 2011.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 15, 2011)

Synthaholic said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


Nice form on the side step I give you a 9.6 out of 10 that reminds me isn't that also obama's unemployment numbers?


----------



## Oldstyle (Aug 15, 2011)

Synthaholic said:


> driveby said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Do you even understand the concept of a "super majority"?  It's when one party has a majority so large that the other party cannot even filibuster.  Try keeping up?  That's rather amusing.


----------



## radioguy (Aug 15, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> radioguy said:
> 
> 
> > Rozman said:
> ...



President has veto power.  If he didn't agree with a budget, he could veto.  For the first six years of bush's Presidency,  he had a Republican Congress.
-g


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 16, 2011)

radioguy said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > radioguy said:
> ...


The veto power can go just so far it can be overturned by congress
Bush also had a democratic congress, try again.
I have come to the conculksion why the Bush bashers can't never blame congress is that democrats have controlkled congress most of the 20th century and blaming congress would also be blamiung a democrat.


----------

